Cloning is no longer the stuff of science fiction, but is a reality that has become a serious subject of hot debate around the globe. At issue are the ethical, scientific, moral and economic implications of cloning. In October 2004, David Stevens, Executive Director of the Christian Medical Association confronted scientific duplicity and specifically challenged the International Society for Stem Cell Research asking to stop misleading the public and the media by changing human cloning nomenclature (Christian Pp). Stevens was referring to a September 2004 statement by ISSCR president Leonard Zon encouraging researchers and the media to stop using the term, "cloning" because of its negative connotations (Christian Pp). Zon said, that "nuclear transfer" be used instead of "therapeutic cloning" because the term "cloning" does not accurately describe this biological process, whereby "cells generated by nuclear transfer are by no definition a clone of the donor of the transferred nucleus" (Christian Pp). Stevens charges that researches are trying to obscure the fact that they want to clone human embryos to get embryonic stem cells, and claims that "history has shown that verbal engineering facilitates social engineering...they simply change the terminology" (Christian Pp).

On November 18, 2004, it was reported that Italy had offered a compromise on human cloning allowing common ground among United Nation member states that are:sharply divided over competing treaties to ban the practice" (Wadhams Pp). Although it is too early to know whether the compromise will help, Belgian diplomat Marc Pecsteen said that progress was being made, however, "We need some more playing with words to find the compromise we need" (Wadhams Pp). The issue of a global treaty on human cloning has created a sharp rift in attitudes of the member states (Wadhams Pp). For example, a proposal from Costa Rica would ban all human cloning, while another from Belgium would ban reproductive cloning yet allow use of embryos for stem cell and other research (Wadhams Pp). The Costa Rican document has sixty-two co-sponsors, including the U.S. And Italy, while the Belgian proposal...

The draft declaration calls on nations to ban attempts to create "human life" through cloning (Wadhams Pp). The Belgian supporters are seeking language that would ban cloning to create human beings, "a crucial difference because many opponents of cloning believe embryos are human life, but not human beings" (Wadhams Pp).
Although there is no scientific reason to link reproductive and therapeutic cloning, they would each involve essentially the same initial technology to produce early human embryos, only the aims would be different (May Pp).

In reproductive cloning the embryo would be implanted in the womb to bring about the birth of a child, whereas in therapeutic cloning, the early embryo would never develop beyond a microscopic ball of cells and would be used to explore stem cell treatments for diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's (May Pp).

There is an overwhelming international consensus that exists in the scientific and medical communities that any attempt at human reproductive cloning would be scientifically unsound and medically unsafe (May pp). Animal experiments have highlighted the dangers that reproductive cloning would pose to fetuses and mothers, and the majority of the public considers it unacceptable, therefore a worldwide ban on reproductive cloning would be supported by international scientists, doctors, and the public (May Pp).

However, there appears to be no legal reason why the U.N. should ban both reproductive and therapeutic cloning, for they can be treated separately in law.(May Pp). In 2001 Britain introduced primary legislation against reproductive cloning, an action taken after it had extended the existing rules governing licenses research on early human embryos to include therapeutic cloning (May Pp), To date the United States does not have primary legislation against wither reproductive or therapeutic cloning, yet by backing the Belgian proposal, it would retain the freedom to ban both and help ensure a worldwide ban on reproductive cloning (May Pp).

Many scientists believe that some day it may be possible…