From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Scouted: House Bans Patents on Human Beings Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:15:58 -0600
At 05:02 PM 12/22/03, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Scouted: House Bans Patents on Human Beings Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:07:40 -0500
Not sure if anyone out there disagrees with this law, but if so, I 'd be interested in hearing from you.
JDG
http://www.lifenews.com/bio175.html
Pro-life groups say a patent is a government-conferred property right and human beings shouldn't be considered "property."
The provision would ban patents for genetically engineered human embryos or human beings but would not prohibit patents on tissues, cells or other biological products.
_______________________________________________________ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
Humans being considered property makes my skin crawl. However part of the argument lies in the definition of life; something which is part of the pro-life/pro-choice discussion. For example if it was agreed upon that life doesn't start until one month after conception
Of course the main problem is that there is no such agreement, and it's unlikely there ever will be. Some people believe that life begins at conception, while others don't.
-- Ronn! :)
Well of course. Understand however, it was quite simply a hypothetical situation created to do nothing more than simplify the act of me making my point.
I know. But then you know I have to point out the obvious . . .
;-)
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
