kinetic

Cult firm claims it cloned a human
27/12/2002 18:41


By Angus MacSwan

HOLLYWOOD, Florida (Reuters) - A company associated with a group that believes extraterrestrials created mankind says it has produced the first clone of a human being, without offering any proof.

The privately held company, Clonaid, said on Friday a baby girl had been cloned through cells taken from a 31-year-old American woman. Clonaid director Brigitte Boisselier said the infant was born on December 26 at 11:55 a.m.

"I’m very, very pleased to announce that the first baby clone is born," Boisselier, a former research chemist in France, said at a news conference in Hollywood, Florida.

Experts were immediately sceptical of Clonaid’s claim that it successfully produced the first human clone with procedures much like those used to clone Dolly the sheep.

"It would be a surprise to me if it were that simple to clone humans," said Dr. Barry Zirkin, who is the head of the division of reproductive biology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,

"Based on the experience with animals, one would imagine it would take many many shots to actually get a human baby."

Neither the baby girl nor her parents were present at the announcement by the company.

But results of genetic testing of the child by an independent expert will be available in 8-9 days, Boisselier said, adding that four more cloned babies would be delivered by the end of January.

"You could still go back to your office and treat me as a fraud," Boisselier, dressed all in black, told the news conference. "You have one week to do that."

Boisselier would not disclose where the baby girl, named Eve, was born. But she said the baby was delivered by Caesarean section and weighed seven pounds (3.1 kg).

INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION NEEDED

Cattle, mice, sheep and other animals have been cloned with mixed success. Some animals have displayed defects later in life and scientists fear the same could happen with cloned humans.

Randall Prather, a reproductive biotechnology professor at the University of Missouri, said an independent expert not named by Clonaid would be essential to conduct DNA fingerprinting to determine the baby is in fact a clone.

"Is it possible in humans? Potentially. Have we seen problems with cloning domestic animals? Yes. Do we understand what causes those problems? No. Therefore we shouldn’t do it," Prather said.

Clonaid has been racing Italian fertility doctor Severino Antinori to produce the first cloned baby. Antinori said last month he expected one of his patients to give birth to a cloned baby in January.

U.S. President George W. Bush has asked Congress to ban the creation of cloned babies as well as the cloning of human embryos for medical research. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a ban, but a similar bill in the Senate stalled after scientists argued such a law would hinder medical advances.

Clonaid spokeswoman Nadine Gary said the baby had been born outside the United States, but she declined to say where.

Non-profit and public interest groups have lined up on both sides of the controversy. Early Friday, anticipating the announcement, Chicago-based Centre for Bioethics and Human Dignity said it condemned the Clonaid effort.

"Regardless of the accuracy of the claim, the fact that renegade scientists are apparently continuing to work to clone human beings despite the proven dangers of mammalian cloning shows that the United States and the rest of the world need to pass a complete ban on this dangerous and unethical procedure as soon as possible," said C Ben Mitchell, a senior fellow at the centre.

The Vatican’s top moral theologian, Father Gino Concetti, also condemned the possibility of human cloning in a recent interview.

Clonaid is linked to a sect called the Raelians, whose founder, Claude Vorihon, describes himself as a prophet and calls himself Rael.

The Raelians, who claim 55,000 followers around the world, believe life on Earth was sparked by extraterrestrials who arrived 25,000 years ago and created humans through cloning. They believe cloning could extend human life for hundreds of years.



I want my very own Halle Berry.

Zarathustra

It's that just peachy. So I take it they created a superbeing that will eventually take them up to the stars in a big spaceship Pass the galatic Koolaid please...

dmaister

i heard he was italian or made in italy

__________________
"The Man, The Legend"

ToshiroOC

Well, seeing as how medical experimentation that that sort of cloning would have entailed, it would not suprise me if they don't release any of the details of "where" for a long long time, if ever. Seeing the kinds of yields provided by conventional cloning techniques on less complex animals, it is highly unlikely that this baby is free of defects, genetic or otherwise... and not only that, but to get a sucessful carriage of a cloned baby, hundreds if not thousands of babies would have needed to be cloned and test-tube grown, then hundreds of those implanted in living humans for incubation, and even then only 1 surviving... I am pro-choice all of the way, but I feel that there are some serious legal and moral issues that would surround that sort of blatant growth and discarding...

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Kemal

Think Antoine's Key.

ToshiroOC

Lol - another Ender's Game fan? Sorry bub, but as far as I can tell, it never existed... though if you can show me somewhere that says it does, and has proof, I would be MOST interested in seeing it...

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Kemal

Enders SHADOW...Actually...

__________________
ASUS A7N8X Rev 2.0
AMD Athlon XP 3000+
1gb PC3200 DDR (512mb PC3200x2) + 256mb
Radeon X800 Pro
Sound Blaster Audigy 2
Windows XP SP 2

ToshiroOC

Well....... if you are going to get picky about it yes But you probably didn't read Enders Shadow before reading Ender's Game (and maybe the rest of the series, which I almost liked more than the first book)

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Kemal

Yes, I red them in order (Game,Speaker,Xeno,Children,Shadow,Hegemon,Puppets ) Favorite was either Shadow or Children. Cant wait for Shadow Of The Giant.

__________________
ASUS A7N8X Rev 2.0
AMD Athlon XP 3000+
1gb PC3200 DDR (512mb PC3200x2) + 256mb
Radeon X800 Pro
Sound Blaster Audigy 2
Windows XP SP 2

dmaister

woahh.... check this out, this thing might or is a hoax, another report talking about a conference that NOW they do not want to test the baby for dna, and that another little girl clone is being born..... in europe..... well until i see scientific proof, im not convinced. http://www.msnbc.com/news/852027.asp?cp1=1

__________________
"The Man, The Legend"

toddsmack2k

i think it is a big hoax! why wouldnt they want to show the world the baby and show the tests proving that they in fact done it? why? because they are lying i think. all they want is 15 minutes of fame. kinda of funny nothing proving that they done it other than a news conference.

__________________

JavaFox

Why? If fetuses can be terminated because they are inconvenient, unwanted, or accidental, then why can we not create as many of them as we want, doing with them what we please?

THAT questions fundementally boils down to an argument of whether or not a fetus is a living human, but, THAT is not the basis for Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion. So if that is not the basis of that ruling, why consider it at all, on any level? Fetuses should be looked at as a resource, and every decision regarding them should be made on a strictly cost/benefit analysis.

That's the precedent that was set, and I respectfully urge you and other pro-abortion proponents to be consistent on such matters.

Dom

I can't believe it, they cloned a human before me! It just so happens I cloned a human last night in my basement and have no proof to support it, but I did!

toddsmack2k

hahahaha well it must be true because you said it. i mean all they have done is said that they did it so it has to be true
i think i will make a clone tonite

__________________

kinetic

Let us know if you run into any problems. I'm sure someone on the board will be able to help you out.

toddsmack2k

hell yeah anybody here want to be cloned we can do it

__________________

ToshiroOC

My perspective is that any cloning would necesarily involve the creation of thousands of embryos, which would then be grown and then implanted, and even then the majority of the babies would be deformed or dead upon birth - that is the problem I have with it. With cloning, the final baby is almost definitely going to have health problems, genetic defects, or severe impairment upon birth, making this sort of cloning, without the proper error-free (non-existent now) technology, very morally irresponsible in my opinion. I feel that aborting a fetus is very different from making thousands of fetuses in order to give birth to a few dozen doomed babies, and I still stand by my position as pro-choice, and I see no inconsistency in my words.

ToshiroOC

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

JavaFox

I see how you can find the practice of producing a live, yet genetically diseased baby morally represensible.

But I reject the notion that you are being consistent on this matter in regards to the thousands of embryos that are produced, and the number of failed fetuses that would be produced. Remember that as far as the law is concerned, being pro-abortion has absolutely nothing to do with considering whether or not a fetus is a living thing. The basis of abortion is not: "this fetus is not a living thing, therefore we can get rid of if we don't want it." It is: "women have a right to their privacy. The fetus can be killed so a woman can maintain privacy." There is no consideration of the life status of the child. In this way, being pro-abortion reduces pregnancy to a health condition, or a process, rather than the creation of a human. And if that is true, I cannot see how you could consitently be FOR aborting fetuses for basically any reason, yet AGAINST cloning, in which not-yet-born-fetuses die.

I also have another question: do you support the right to defend others, as it relates to deadly force?

JavaFox

And I am moving this thread to the Political Debate forum!

ToshiroOC

Wheee! I got moved to my new favorite forum! Anyway, in response to your response, I am not pro-abortion - I am pro-choice. It is a fine distinction... And I feel that your claim as to what the basis for abortion being "privacy" to be relevant only in certain cases - what if someone knows in advance that a pregancy would be fatal, and is not willing to take the risk? An abortion in that case would be necesary to save the mother's life. Moreover, I do not see how the "basis of abortion" is relevant to what I am saying - I am saying that I believe that a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion or not, and that abortions should not be banned. Please extrapolate on why you think that this basis for abortion (source?) is relevant, and I will respond to that...

Few other things - I am not against cloning because not-yet-born fetuses die. They never lived in the first place. I am against the blatant creation of human life without regard for the end result - dead and dying babies upon birth. Cloning, as far as it has been developed, has been shown to cause serious defects in resultant babies. If there was a guarantee that one could produce one totally healthy and normal baby though cloning, without needing to carry multiple babies to birth and then weeding out the sick and dead from those, I would not have a problem with it.

And I believe that the use of deadly force in self defense is only acceptable when the defender's life is in danger. If an 80 year old man was attacked by a body-building murderer, I would say that the 80 year old would be justified in killing the murderer in self defense. If two 30 year olds are fighting, and one pulls a knife or a gun, I say that the other one would be justified in killing the other in self defense. The intent and means to kill must be present before lethal force is used, in my opinion.

ToshiroOC

This is getting interesting, isn't it?

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

JavaFox

Okay, I can respect that and can see the distinction. I just think that title takes the emphasis off of what I think is the real issue (life), but I see how it is a valid label, and I will do my best to not call "pro-choice" anything but that.

When a mother's life is in danger because of pregnancy and the baby is killed, it is self-defense. Acceptance of this kind of abortion existed before Roe v. Wade. But the data clear shows that today, most abortions are committed not because of threat to the mother or impregnation because of rape, but rather because the child is unwanted, accidental, or inconvenient.

In the context of cloning, I suppose it is not relevant. I thought you had a problem with the harvestation of embryos, and death of unborn-fetuses, but since you do not, then it is irrelevant. But the basis for abortion is quite relevant when it comes to debates about abortion itself! Look, the abortion debate has become one of religion, and one that asks the question "is a fetus a living thing?" I maintain that this question is an obfuscation; it is a rationalization made by pro-choicers to make them feel okay with their position. Like I said, abortion is NOT legal because "fetuses aren't alive." Abortion IS legal because of a belief that a woman's right to privacy trumps a fetus' natural right to life.

The basis of abortion ought to be imporant, especially to you. I am saying that you are asking the wrong questions, and making the wrong arguments when it comes to justifying abortion. Because whether or not you think a fetus is a living thing is irrelevant to WHY abortion is now allowed in this country. And it ought to provoke thought in you to consider that fact.

Now, in only what can be considered a strange and few-and-far-in-between moment, I am going to agree with you on one thing. If there was a way to produce a physically and genetically healthy baby, with no failure rate, and no fetuses dying, then I would have no moral objection to the cloning of humans. But those are pretty hefty ifs.

When I asked you about defending others, I was refering to states that have laws that state you can kill someone in self-defense NOT of yourself, but of others. Do you support that? It relates to abortion, because there was recently a case in which a court ruled that a woman who killed her boyfriend because he threatened to kill her unborn child (he kicked her in the stomach, etc) was perfectly justified under the defend-others law. I think this poses a big problem for pro-choice advocates. Here is why: if a mother can KILL somebody to defend her baby, and then KILL her baby the next day, legally, how is that consistent? Either the fetus is or it isn't alive. Now, I argue that the legal basis for abortion is NOT whether or not a fetus is alive, and I maintain that. But my question is this: if you think abortions are okay because fetuses aren't alive, then you must oppose deadly-force-to-defend-others laws, right?

ToshiroOC

Ah, well, I see another distinction - this time between my personal reasons for supporting the right to choose, and the reasons why abortion is legal in this country. I believe that a woman should have the right to choose until the point where the baby would be viable if it was born and be able to grow into a thinking adult - that is where I draw the line between life and not-yet-living. I believe that it is the woman's decision as to whether the baby will live or die, for any reason, even ones so stupid and pointless as ones relating to convenience, because until that point, the fetus is not alive, and in my opinion, until the point of viability, is only an extension of the mother and not its own entity. The woman's right to privacy? It may be the legal reason for the legality of abortions in this country (again, what source?), but I do not share it in its entirety, and I would need to see the context and the source of that before I could say more about it. I also see a beneficial side to the legality of abortions - I think that without abortions, mothers who truly wanted them would still be able to get them, but in much worse medical conditions, with much greater rates of complications, so the banning of abortions would only serve to stop a few mothers, and would increase the danger considerably for the others who are determined to get one, for any reason.

The recent case you speak of is interesting - however, it would be very hard for a mother to get an abortion after defending her baby in court - if I recall correctly, they do checks on the mother's mental health before hand, and that sort of information would show up - it would be a warning sign to any doctor if a woman killed a man in defense of her child, then wanted to abort the child. Again, I feel that if the defender is defending someone's life against attack, then deadly force is warranted. However, that would base the perspective on whether or not the baby was alive at that time from the mother's point of view... this in a very shady area of legality, and it is very hard to say - there is an apparent contradiction in the laws, however, the laws do not see the fetus as alive, while the mother does, and the laws base "alive" on the mother's perspective in one instance while the laws define it themselves in another. I would still support the laws, despite the contradiction, because I feel that, as a whole, they are good for society in general to allow people to help other people without fear of criminal charges.

ToshiroOC

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

JavaFox

Right, I understand that, and I again must say that your statement is an obfuscation and a rationalization. The "fetus isn't alive" statement is an argument crafted to make you feel okay about committing, or supporting the choice to commit, an abortion. That isn't the issue.


Source? I thought I made it quite clear that I was arguing on the basis of Roe v. Wade. The legal ruling, which can be found here, said this: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer" and "Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Personally, I find the basis for abortion reprehensible. Now, I do not know when life begins, but I generally like to point to the eight-week mark, in which brain waves can be detected in a fetus. But the moral objection I have to abortion is that the decision was not made based on one fundmentally important question: when does life begin? In other words, this case did not say "Well, let's see... scientifically, a fetus is not alive up until the second trimester, and it's okay to kill it before that." That would be one thing. That would have merit, to me, because it would be a scientific finding. I might not agree with the finding, but at least it wouldn't be so repugnant. Yet that is not the basis of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade found that, under previous cases establishing a person's right to privacy under the Due Process Clause, a woman's personal privacy was more important than the potential life of fetus, irrespective of whether or not that fetus is a living thing! That is disgusting.

Yeah, and you probably think the War on Drugs is a bad idea, too. Why is it that, simply because a battle is hard you and your ilk are so apt to say "This is too difficult, let's just forget it"? The fact is, all your talk of coat-hangers and terrible medical conditions, is propaganda. And propaganda can never stand up to a clear-headed analysis of the facts. First, any statement you make about how many women died from illegal abortions is stupid. Yeah, stupid. Why? Because there simply is no way to know those figures, and no reliable source of data on the matter. Second, your claim is blown away by the wealth of data that already does exist and is credible. If your "women would get abortions by an unlicensed surgeon in an alleyway and die" argument was true, then why did only 39 women die because of illegal abortion-related complications in 1972, according to the US Department of Health (Bureau of Vital Statistics)? In 1942, there were 1,231 abortion-related deaths. And only 133 in 1968.

And if these illegal abortions really were botched by crazed renegade doctor-wannabes, is that why a study published in 1960 in the American Journal of Health found that, in 1958, 84-87% of all illegal abortions were commited by licensed doctors with good reputations? Is that why, in Roe v. Wade --the precedent-setter-- the abortion was committed by a licensed physician?

Yeah, really.


The link with details of the case I mentioned can be found here.

I urge you to either be consistent or to re-examine your views. Either the baby --which legally COULD have be aborted-- was alive, and the mother had a right to defend it, or it wasn't, in which case the mother should be in jail for murder.

Well, actually, like I have said before, the fetus' status of life is irrelevant to legal discussions, as Roe v. Wade illustrates. The law does not define, at least not on a federal level, what life is, and the mother's opinion on basically anything has no bearing in legal matters, as you should know. All I am saying is this: as far as your views go, your support of this law is contradictory. You say that fetuses aren't living things, and therefore it's okay to abort them. This law says you can kill somebody to defend a fetus that you have full legal rights to abort. Which is right? Because, if you are arguing from the position that abortion is A-OK because fetuses aren't alive, then you should want to see that woman in jail!

Actually, I don't see this as a legal contradiction in the least, and let me tell you why. Roe v. Wade never established whether or not a fetus was a living thing; it merely said --and I must confess that I am feeling like somewhat of a broken record-- that a woman's right to privacy is more important that the fetus. It never said "a fetus isn't alive." This defense-of-others case sets a precedent: a fetus IS alive. Because if it wasn't alive, then the woman would be unjustified in defending an unviable baby. This ruling says that an unviable baby is still a living thing, worthy of defense. And THAT is not a legal contradiction, but is poses a moral dillema to all of us.

And that is: Roe v. Wade said it's okay to kill fetuses, because a woman has a right to be private. This Michigan case says that a fetus is a living thing that you can defend. So, what we as a society are collectively saying is this: "Yes, it's murder to kill a fetus. Yes, you can defend your child --using deadly force if you must-- from being harmed or killed. And yes, we believe that a woman has a right to privacy, and because of that right to privacy, a woman can kill her fetus."

A woman's right to privacy, thus, now justifies what a court has appropriately ruled as murder.

raid517

Mmm I tend to refrain from these kinds of debates... They usually get way too heated and no one ever agrees... But for me if cloning is ever made real (don't forget religeous cults are prone to making outrageous claims to attract members) then as well as the basic health considerations you must consider the welfare of the child in person. Since that child had no choice in the question of whether it wished to be born in this way, what is the likely psychological impact on that child should they discover their true origin? How will others respond to them? Will they be happy to live their lives as 'freaks' where unusual or unreasonable expectations might be place on them by almost everyone they meet? Will they be happy under these circumstances? In many ways this consitutes a form of crulety that surpasses all other considerations.
As for the abortion issue, well I won't even go there. Except to say that I have no sympathy for the reactionary, religeous American right, they are the ones who are running the show behind the scences in the US right now and who are priming themselves to wreck havock both domestically with the errosion of basic human rights and freedoms and internationally, with waging war and economic terror on those who fail to agree or comply with the US' stance on trade. The current American administraction has hyjacked the 'war on terror' and turned it into a war on anyone who does not agree with their particularly unique right wing perspective. Disagree with anything they do and you run the risk of being accused of being 'unpatriotic'. But then that's another debate for another thread....

JavaFox

I do believe that being weak-willed on matters of national defense is unpatriotic and dangerous. And this is relatively characteristic of liberalism as of late.

Your statements regarding the current administration sound parrotted at best, but I urge you to start a new thread and detail some of the things you so vaguely refer to. Perhaps a reactionary religious (though I am not particularly religious, I do believe that there are fundmental truths and lessons to be learned from the life of Christ, and I do believe in the God of the Bible) nut like myself would learn something. Or maybe, perhaps, you would gain perspective on our current president?

Perish the thought!

Vampyromaniac

No, I think you have it wrong. I didn't see anything where the court said that a fetus is alive. I did see:I think you're mistaken on what the ruling was.

It sounds to me like you think the Appeals Court ruled something like: "fetuses are alive, and can be defended."
When I think the actual ruling was that the defense is allowed to use that argument, when the original court said they couldn't. That's why they have a new trial, because now they are allowed to use that argument.

Now, at the end of the new trial the jury will decide whether or not "fetuses can be defended." And, if the jury says they can be defended, of course it will be appealed until either it gets overturned, or the Supreme Court makes a final ruling.


But dude, why are you arguing about a case that's not done yet? Of course two contradictory laws are not going to be allowed to co-exist in the end. Why don't you wait until the original case, and all the appeals are over with?

__________________

ToshiroOC

Well Javafox, to be perfectly honest, I am no-where the political debater that I wish to be, and I do not have answers to many of your questions and arguements - yet. Perhaps this topic will be revisited later, and I can re-express my views more clearly, cogently, and satisfactorily, but until that time, I will not attempt another defense of my position, as my current lack of knowledge would only serve to hurt me and my position. However, in response to your comments above, I must say something Though it is a topic for a new thread, I feel that calling a wish for peace and a strong stance against war to be very patriotic, and only dangerous to those who would want war for their own selfish gain [sarcasm] who don't include a single member of our current Bush administration or it's greatest financial contributors [/sarcasm]. Some other things (again, probably worth a separate thread), are the issues brought up here in http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14873

I feel that the current wars being waged in the interests of "national defense" are selfish wars instigated by the Bush administration for reasons not wholly related to terrorism, and the US need not be involved directly (with US troops) in a single war right now, with the possible exclusion of the impending war in North Korea, which has shown itself to be a dangerously unstable nuclear power with minimal interest in self-preservation, peace, or the upholding of treaties.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

JavaFox

Well, here's is where you are wrong: self-defense --and defense of others, which is merely an extension of self-defense law-- is defined as such: "Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force[....] Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm." In other words, you can only legally and correctly claim self-defense if you thought that someone was threatening your life. Do you get it? If a fetus isn't alive, it can't be defended under self-defense/defense-of-others laws, because under those laws you can only kill another human being if that human being threatens your (or another's) LIFE. If a fetus has no life, then it has no legal protection on any level.

Secondly, the case in question here HAD been ruled on, by an Appeals Court in the State of Michigan. While it did say that the Supreme Court of Michigan might be asked to hear it, the ruling, as of yet, stands. But even if it doesn't, it's pretty irrelevant inasmuch as numerous other states already have similar laws. "Twenty-six states have homicide laws that recognize unborn victims [....] Fourteen of those, including Michigan, have laws that recognize unborn children as victims throughout all periods of pre-natal development." If a child has legal protection in the womb, if you can exercise "self-defense" on its behalf, THEN IT IS ALIVE. You can't USE self-defense as a justification unless a fetus IS alive.

Here is the sad, thing, Toshiro -- these laws DON'T contradict. Roe v. Wade and the myriad of fetal defense laws are in harmony. Again, let me explain why. Roe v. Wade allows abortion on the grounds of a woman's right to maintain privacy, irrespective of whether or not the fetus is alive. Let me repeat myself: whether or not the fetus is alive DOES NOT LEGALLY MATTER. Defense-of-others laws, and fetal defense merely say that a fetus IS alive, and that you can be punished for, of be killed in self-defense for, killing or threatening to kill a fetus. They don't contradict. Fetal defense laws say that fetuses are alive, and they can be defended. Roe v. Wade says that fetuses can be terminated to maintain privacy. The Roe v. Wade ruling doesn't care whether or not a fetus is alive, which is particularly why I see abortion law as repugnant and rephrehenisble. But there is no contradiction.

ToshiroOC

Er, I didn't say that... I'll be posting later though on the topic..

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Vampyromaniac

Dude, what are you talking about? I never made any comment on this. The only things I said were about the ruling of the Appeals Court.
Um yes, I know this. That Appeals Court ruling is what I was talking about. And I still think you don't understand what the Appeals Court was ruling on.
The Appeals Court was not ruling on whether or not a fetus may be protected under "protection-of-others" by use of deadly force.
The Appeals Court was only ruling on whether that argument may be made by the defense.
Do you get it?
The Appeals Court did not rule that a fetus may be protected under "defense-of-others" by use of deadly force; that decision will be made by the jury of the new trial.
The Appeals Court only ruled that the original court was wrong to disallow the protection-of-others defense, and that there will be a new trial where the mother's defense will now be allowed to use that defense.

And since this is the first time such a defense will be used in such a case (I'm talking about claiming defense-of-others to defend against murdering a would-be attacker of fetuses,) it is going to determine whether or not a new precendent will be set.
If the jury finds that the fetuses are not eligible as the "others" under protection-of-others, then the precedent will be set that you cannot kill a would-be attacker in such a case, and no one will be allowed to claim "defense-of-others" in a case like this again. And of course the mother will go to jail.
If the jury finds that the fetuses are eligible as "the others" under protection-of-others, then the precedent will be set that you can kill a would-be attacker in such a case, and people will be able to use that defense freely in the future for cases like this.
But you have to wait until the new trial is over, to see what precedent will be set. No precedent has been set yet, because the case is not over.

Now read everything again to make sure you understand me.

__________________