![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
semiotic_pirateWell, at least, that is the song I am singing to myself as I update here.
The first thing that I want to make everyone aware of - I found a NEW SUSHI place! Yay! They just opened up down the street a ways - less than five minutes away. Only $4.00 a roll; they had my three favorite rolls, salmon skin roll, spicy tuna roll and spicy crab roll... and the seaweed salad was awesome! This is their grand opening week. They are going to have in house all you can eat sushi for $20 per person... AND every sunday you can be taught the art of sushi making (I think the hours were 12-2pm) for $50 per person - and I had just talked to my Mum earlier today about taking a class to learn how to make the great sushi. Yes. I absolutely LOVE finding great new places to eat.
The next item of business is a continuation of one of my earlier posts here. It is an article that was posted through The Washington Post. An article, mind you, that I was able to read in the passenger seat of the car on the way home from NH using my new giftie PDA/phone combo! Yay! So: Bring on the Re-Pet!
Cloned Cat Sale Generates Ethics Debate
By Paul Elias
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 23, 2004; 12:09 AM
SAN FRANCISCO – The first cloned-to-order pet sold in the United States is named Little Nicky, a 9-week-old kitten delivered to a Texas woman saddened by the loss of a cat she had owned for 17 years.
The kitten cost its owner $50,000 and was created from DNA from her beloved cat, named Nicky, who died last year.
"He is identical. His personality is the same," the owner, Julie, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. Although she agreed to be photographed with her cat, she asked that her last name and hometown not be disclosed because she said she fears being targeted by groups opposed to cloning.
Yet while Little Nicky, who was delivered two weeks ago, frolics in his new home, the kitten's creation and sale has reignited fierce ethical and scientific debate over cloning technology, which is rapidly advancing.
The company that created Little Nicky, Sausalito-based Genetic Savings and Clone, said it hopes by May to have produced the world's first cloned dog – a much more lucrative market than cats.
While it is based in the San Francisco Bay area, the company's cloning work will be done at its new lab in Madison, Wis.
Commercial interests already are cloning prized cattle for about $20,000 each, and scientists have cloned mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, horses – and even the endangered banteng, a wild bull that is found mostly in Indonesia.
Several research teams around the world, meanwhile, are racing to create the first cloned monkey.
Aside from human cloning, which has been achieved only at the microscopic embryo stage, no cloning project has fueled more debate than the marketing plans of Genetic Savings and Clone.
"It's morally problematic and a little reprehensible," said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University. "For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays."
Animals rights activists complain that new feline production systems aren't needed because thousands of stray cats are euthanized each year for want of homes.
Lou Hawthorne, Genetic Savings and Clone's chief executive, said his company purchases thousands of ovaries from spay clinics across the country. It extracts the eggs, which are combined with the genetic material from the animals to be cloned.
Critics also complain that the technology is available only to the wealthy, that using it to create house pets is frivolous and that customers grieving over lost pets have unrealistic expectations of what they're buying.
In fact, the first cat cloned in 2001 had a different coat from its genetic donor, underscoring that environment and other biological variables make it impossible to exactly duplicate animals.
"The thing that many people do not realize is that the cloned cat is not the same as the original," said Bonnie Beaver, a Texas A&M animal behaviorist who heads the American Veterinary Medical Association, which has no position on the issue. "It has a different personality. It has different life experiences. They want Fluffy, but it's not Fluffy."
Scientists also warn that cloned animals suffer from more health problems than their traditionally bred peers and that cloning is still a very inexact science. It takes many gruesome failures to produce just a single clone.
Genetic Savings and Clone said its new cloning technique, developed by animal cloning pioneer James Robl has improved survival rates, health and appearance. The new technique seeks to condense and transfer only the donor's genetic material to a surrogate's egg instead of an entire cell nucleus.
Between 15 percent and 45 percent of cloned cats born alive die within the first 30 days, Hawthorne said. But he said that range is consistent with natural births, depending on the breed of cat.
Austin, Texas-based ViaGen Inc., which has cloned hundreds of cows, pigs and goats, also is experimenting with the new cloning technique.
"The jury is still out, but the research shows it to be promising," company president Sara Davis said. "The technology is improving all the time."
Genetic Savings and Clone has been behind the creation of at least five cats since 2001, including the first one created.
It hopes to deliver as many as five more clones to customers who have paid the company's $50,000 fee. By the end of next year, it hopes to have cloned as many as 50 cats.
The company has yet to turn a profit.
Glad everyone in the great white north liked their gifties! ;-)
I don't really mean to dwell on the subject of death... Either by people denying it happened and bringing loved ones back, or by "euthanizing" people instead of humanely letting them die with dignity, yes, even infants. (Something I just can't let go, huh?) People cannot seem to accept death as part of life, one that comes naturally in its own time. I am one of those people who believe that suicide is a cop-out. A line that I heard in Angels in America would be perfect but I can't remember exactly how he put it. He (the protagonist whose name I cannot remember either) was standing before the council of angels, the powers and principalities... and they told him that he could stay there, and be at peace, if he didn't want to go back to the earth and continue to suffer. He chose more life no matter how horrible the symptoms of the disease got, he wasn't going to give up even one second of it because it meant that he was alive and while he was alive, existing, he could be part of the world. Okay, it was a lot more dramatic and poetic than that but you get the gist of it. I know that there are plenty of people out there who would disagree with me, who have disagreed with me on this. Ah, well. We agree to disagree.
I also, after having been a long-time supporter of the death penalty have changed my mind. On one hand, I think that the person would suffer MORE if they were incarcerated for life. On the other hand, I think that the person might, on a very outside chance, feel remorse for whatever it is that they did do. There is also the benefits to be had by studying those who are incarcerated for life, what in their previous experience (or genetic disposition) put them in that cell? Knowing how their minds tick would help us to deal with, and identify early, other people who are likely to offend and maybe head that off at the pass, focus their energy in a more positive direction, rehabilitate before hand. (Not even sure if that is possible in some cases, but maybe in others.) We shouldn't take it on ourselves to kill/murder someone else, we shouldn't ever have to ask someone for that to be their job. I don't know why, I don't understand where my conviction about this (no pun intended) matter flows from. It definitely isn't from any religious notion, because we all know that there is the reality (past and present) of religious sanctioned executions...
Now we come to the crux of my problem... Help me with my conundrum: Your input is desired to help me to analyze what the hell I am thinking and why:
While driving down from NH we are going through the toll on the Mass Pike, and it was as usual taking forever and right in front of us is this tractor trailer truck with the usual assortment of signs on the back doors... Except for one. It said:
It's not a Choice.
It is a Child.
In big bold letters it said this. I was totally shocked that a truck would have something like this on the back of it until S. so "kindly" pointed out that the trucking company (or the company itself - which the truck represented) was called The Covenent. Wow.
And, for all of you out there, I don't think of a fetus as being a person until the nervous system forms - no brain, no awareness... Still consider it a parasite until then. And until a fetus can survive on it's own outside of the uterus without the help of machinery then I am still in favor of abortion. Without the mother, it would not live, it is not yet a person, a being entitled to rights inherent to a human being. I am adamant about my support for the right to choose. I personally wouldn't, I would rather do my utmost for prevention of pregnancy... However, I don't know what I would do if I had a fetus inside of me that was deformed or diseased, or something along those lines.
So then, what do I do about this seeming diversion of an otherwise pro-life stance? Does this even logically make any sense?
The first thing that I want to make everyone aware of - I found a NEW SUSHI place! Yay! They just opened up down the street a ways - less than five minutes away. Only $4.00 a roll; they had my three favorite rolls, salmon skin roll, spicy tuna roll and spicy crab roll... and the seaweed salad was awesome! This is their grand opening week. They are going to have in house all you can eat sushi for $20 per person... AND every sunday you can be taught the art of sushi making (I think the hours were 12-2pm) for $50 per person - and I had just talked to my Mum earlier today about taking a class to learn how to make the great sushi. Yes. I absolutely LOVE finding great new places to eat.
The next item of business is a continuation of one of my earlier posts here. It is an article that was posted through The Washington Post. An article, mind you, that I was able to read in the passenger seat of the car on the way home from NH using my new giftie PDA/phone combo! Yay! So: Bring on the Re-Pet!
Cloned Cat Sale Generates Ethics Debate
By Paul Elias
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 23, 2004; 12:09 AM
SAN FRANCISCO – The first cloned-to-order pet sold in the United States is named Little Nicky, a 9-week-old kitten delivered to a Texas woman saddened by the loss of a cat she had owned for 17 years.
The kitten cost its owner $50,000 and was created from DNA from her beloved cat, named Nicky, who died last year.
"He is identical. His personality is the same," the owner, Julie, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. Although she agreed to be photographed with her cat, she asked that her last name and hometown not be disclosed because she said she fears being targeted by groups opposed to cloning.
Yet while Little Nicky, who was delivered two weeks ago, frolics in his new home, the kitten's creation and sale has reignited fierce ethical and scientific debate over cloning technology, which is rapidly advancing.
The company that created Little Nicky, Sausalito-based Genetic Savings and Clone, said it hopes by May to have produced the world's first cloned dog – a much more lucrative market than cats.
While it is based in the San Francisco Bay area, the company's cloning work will be done at its new lab in Madison, Wis.
Commercial interests already are cloning prized cattle for about $20,000 each, and scientists have cloned mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, horses – and even the endangered banteng, a wild bull that is found mostly in Indonesia.
Several research teams around the world, meanwhile, are racing to create the first cloned monkey.
Aside from human cloning, which has been achieved only at the microscopic embryo stage, no cloning project has fueled more debate than the marketing plans of Genetic Savings and Clone.
"It's morally problematic and a little reprehensible," said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University. "For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays."
Animals rights activists complain that new feline production systems aren't needed because thousands of stray cats are euthanized each year for want of homes.
Lou Hawthorne, Genetic Savings and Clone's chief executive, said his company purchases thousands of ovaries from spay clinics across the country. It extracts the eggs, which are combined with the genetic material from the animals to be cloned.
Critics also complain that the technology is available only to the wealthy, that using it to create house pets is frivolous and that customers grieving over lost pets have unrealistic expectations of what they're buying.
In fact, the first cat cloned in 2001 had a different coat from its genetic donor, underscoring that environment and other biological variables make it impossible to exactly duplicate animals.
"The thing that many people do not realize is that the cloned cat is not the same as the original," said Bonnie Beaver, a Texas A&M animal behaviorist who heads the American Veterinary Medical Association, which has no position on the issue. "It has a different personality. It has different life experiences. They want Fluffy, but it's not Fluffy."
Scientists also warn that cloned animals suffer from more health problems than their traditionally bred peers and that cloning is still a very inexact science. It takes many gruesome failures to produce just a single clone.
Genetic Savings and Clone said its new cloning technique, developed by animal cloning pioneer James Robl has improved survival rates, health and appearance. The new technique seeks to condense and transfer only the donor's genetic material to a surrogate's egg instead of an entire cell nucleus.
Between 15 percent and 45 percent of cloned cats born alive die within the first 30 days, Hawthorne said. But he said that range is consistent with natural births, depending on the breed of cat.
Austin, Texas-based ViaGen Inc., which has cloned hundreds of cows, pigs and goats, also is experimenting with the new cloning technique.
"The jury is still out, but the research shows it to be promising," company president Sara Davis said. "The technology is improving all the time."
Genetic Savings and Clone has been behind the creation of at least five cats since 2001, including the first one created.
It hopes to deliver as many as five more clones to customers who have paid the company's $50,000 fee. By the end of next year, it hopes to have cloned as many as 50 cats.
The company has yet to turn a profit.
Glad everyone in the great white north liked their gifties! ;-)
I don't really mean to dwell on the subject of death... Either by people denying it happened and bringing loved ones back, or by "euthanizing" people instead of humanely letting them die with dignity, yes, even infants. (Something I just can't let go, huh?) People cannot seem to accept death as part of life, one that comes naturally in its own time. I am one of those people who believe that suicide is a cop-out. A line that I heard in Angels in America would be perfect but I can't remember exactly how he put it. He (the protagonist whose name I cannot remember either) was standing before the council of angels, the powers and principalities... and they told him that he could stay there, and be at peace, if he didn't want to go back to the earth and continue to suffer. He chose more life no matter how horrible the symptoms of the disease got, he wasn't going to give up even one second of it because it meant that he was alive and while he was alive, existing, he could be part of the world. Okay, it was a lot more dramatic and poetic than that but you get the gist of it. I know that there are plenty of people out there who would disagree with me, who have disagreed with me on this. Ah, well. We agree to disagree.
I also, after having been a long-time supporter of the death penalty have changed my mind. On one hand, I think that the person would suffer MORE if they were incarcerated for life. On the other hand, I think that the person might, on a very outside chance, feel remorse for whatever it is that they did do. There is also the benefits to be had by studying those who are incarcerated for life, what in their previous experience (or genetic disposition) put them in that cell? Knowing how their minds tick would help us to deal with, and identify early, other people who are likely to offend and maybe head that off at the pass, focus their energy in a more positive direction, rehabilitate before hand. (Not even sure if that is possible in some cases, but maybe in others.) We shouldn't take it on ourselves to kill/murder someone else, we shouldn't ever have to ask someone for that to be their job. I don't know why, I don't understand where my conviction about this (no pun intended) matter flows from. It definitely isn't from any religious notion, because we all know that there is the reality (past and present) of religious sanctioned executions...
Now we come to the crux of my problem... Help me with my conundrum: Your input is desired to help me to analyze what the hell I am thinking and why:
While driving down from NH we are going through the toll on the Mass Pike, and it was as usual taking forever and right in front of us is this tractor trailer truck with the usual assortment of signs on the back doors... Except for one. It said:
It's not a Choice.
It is a Child.
In big bold letters it said this. I was totally shocked that a truck would have something like this on the back of it until S. so "kindly" pointed out that the trucking company (or the company itself - which the truck represented) was called The Covenent. Wow.
And, for all of you out there, I don't think of a fetus as being a person until the nervous system forms - no brain, no awareness... Still consider it a parasite until then. And until a fetus can survive on it's own outside of the uterus without the help of machinery then I am still in favor of abortion. Without the mother, it would not live, it is not yet a person, a being entitled to rights inherent to a human being. I am adamant about my support for the right to choose. I personally wouldn't, I would rather do my utmost for prevention of pregnancy... However, I don't know what I would do if I had a fetus inside of me that was deformed or diseased, or something along those lines.
So then, what do I do about this seeming diversion of an otherwise pro-life stance? Does this even logically make any sense?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 03:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 03:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 07:24 pm (UTC)I'm flattered that you liked it, though. I'm not starting any drama about it, or making a fuss, please, keep it and enjoy. Mind if I ask how you found it, though? Just my curiosity.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 07:38 pm (UTC)It's a great pic, if you could tell me how I'm supposed to tell people where I got it I'll do it if you want. (I have no problems giving credit where credit is due.)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 07:49 pm (UTC)I probably wouldn't have asked for it, but since you offered the credit, I'll take you up on it (that's awful nice of ya). You can go to the Edit Pictures page (http://www.livejournal.com/editpics.bml) to change keywords, and just a simple "made by archmage" in the 'Comments' field would be groovy.