Text integral 
Procedură : 2008/2598(RSP)
Stadiile documentului în şedinţă
Stadii ale documentelor :

Texte depuse :

O-0069/2008 (B6-0545/2008)

Dezbateri :

PV 02/09/2008 - 17
CRE 02/09/2008 - 17

Voturi :

Texte adoptate :

Stenograma dezbaterilor
Marţi, 2 septembrie 2008 - Bruxelles Ediţie revizuită

17. Clonarea animalelor în scopul producţiei de alimente (dezbatere)
Înregistrare video a intervenţiilor

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sull'interrogazione orale alla Commissione sulla clonazione di animali a scopi alimentari, di Neil Parish, a nome della commissione per l'agricoltura e lo sviluppo rurale (O-0069/2008 - B6-0545/2008).


  Neil Parish, author. − Mr President, I should like very much to welcome Commissioner Vassiliou here this evening to listen to our oral question, especially at this late hour.

When we deal with cloning, it is not only a case of food safety, but also we in Europe believe that, under the common agricultural policy, we are producing food to a very high standard and also to a very high welfare standard. The problems with cloning concern not only the welfare of animals but also consumer confidence in food that may come from cloned animals.

You only have to look across the Atlantic Ocean to the United States of America to see how to stop cloned animals from entering the food chain. For instance, if a cloned bull is worth EUR 1 000 at the end of its life to go into the food chain, then the people who have bred that bull have to put up a bond, which may be worth EUR 3 000, and when they destroy that animal and make sure that it does not go into the food chain, they get the bond back. It is quite a simple way of keeping cloned animals out of the food chain.

I think we have to take this matter very seriously and I would urge the Commissioner to look at this again.

I will go through some of the problems with cloning, especially from a welfare point of view. Cloning entails serious health and welfare problems for clones and their surrogate dams; animal health problems come from invasive techniques required to produce a clone; there is the suffering of surrogate dams which carry cloned foetuses, and high levels of ill health and mortality in early life for cloned animals.

The OIE Scientific and Technical Review identified that only 6% of cloned embryos resulted in healthy, long-term surviving clones.

The EFSA report also points out an increased proportion of pregnancy failure and disorders in surrogate dams of cloned embryos. These disorders and the large size of clones make caesareans more frequent in cattle carrying clones than in conventional pregnancy. Mortality and morbidity is higher in clones than in sexually-produced animals; the welfare of both surrogate dam and clone can be affected.

On the ethics side, the European Group on Ethics has doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified. It also does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.

If you look into the figures of what has happened when animals are cloned, cloned calves are often 25% heavier than normal, leading to a painful birth; 25% of cows pregnant with clones at day 120 of gestation develop hydroallantois. Reports in 2003 show only 13% of embryos planted in surrogate dams result in calves delivered at full term; only 5% of all cloned embryos transferred into recipient cows have survived. EFSA’s opinion cites a study where out of 2 170 cattle receiving embryos only 106 live births occurred – 4.9% – and only 82 survived more than two days.

We also have to consider the problems that occur not only on the animal welfare side but also in the gene pool of animals – and this is a farming aspect also. Take the Holstein Friesian – it is thought that there are only about 50 strains of the Holstein Friesian. If we start cloning bulls and the heifer from a cloned bull is then put back on to the offspring, so the same father is used, then we will create an even tighter gene pool. There are then problems with disease and with genetics being carried over to those offspring. Therefore, we need to make sure there is hybrid vigour.

The industry itself cannot explain why a cloned animal has the cell of the parent – an older cell. Therefore, again, there is the risk of producing an animal that is not as strong and as healthy.

Therefore, I call on the Commission to submit proposals prohibiting the cloning of animals for the food supply and the placing of cloned animals on the market in meat and dairy products.


  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I want to thank Mr Parish for raising this question, because it is a question to which the Commission has given a lot of consideration and considers important, and it is indeed something which preoccupies us. The European Commission – as Mr Parish said – has asked EFSA to provide an opinion on food safety, animal health, animal welfare and the environmental implications of the use of live animal clones.

The final opinion was adopted on 15 July this year, and the Commission is now evaluating the necessary steps to be taken. This opinion refers to uncertainties in the risk assessment due to the limited number of studies available. It also refers to the fact that the health and welfare of a significant proportion of clones have been found to be adversely affected, often severely, with a fatal outcome.

The Commission is aware that, even though the efficiency of animal cloning has improved in recent years, adverse health affects on animal health and welfare still occur today. There are indications that mortality and morbidity rates in clones after birth are higher than in sexually-reproduced animals. However, most surviving clones are normal and healthy, as determined by psychological measurements as well as by behaviour and clinical examinations.

The Commission closely follows the scientific developments in this area. In 2004 the Commission also financed a pan-European research project called Cloning in Public, addressing ethical, legal and other societal aspects of farm animal cloning. The project was coordinated by the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment and aimed to promote public debate on the issue of biotechnology.

As far as the involvement of the public is concerned, in autumn 2007 the Commission launched a public consultation on the ethics of animal cloning for food supply, and in September 2007 it organised an open round table on the same topic with representatives from academia, industry, NGOs, civil society, international organisations, industry etc. In order to increase public participation, the round table was also broadcast on the internet, and its proceedings have been published.

Last but not least, the Commission has recently launched a Eurobarometer survey on consumers’ attitudes to cloning for food production. Its purpose is to ask the public about their opinion and their awareness regarding cloning and food derived from the offspring of cloned animals. The results will be made available very shortly.

The Commission takes ethical considerations fully into account when dealing with sensitive issues such as cloning. The Commission has given its attention to the ethics of animal cloning since 1997, when the group of advisers to the European Commission on the ethical implications of biotechnology issued an opinion on the ethics of cloning. Due to the state of the art of technology at that time, the opinion did not address the use of cloning for food purposes. It is for this reason that the Commission asked the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, the independent advisory body to the Commission in this field, to give an opinion on the ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply. Their opinion was published in January this year. Considering the current level of suffering and health problems of surrogate dams and animal clones, the European Group on Ethics expressed doubts as to whether cloning animals for food supply is ethically justified. It advocated that at the moment there are no convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring. The Commission is currently examining the concerns expressed by the Group.

Under international rules, restrictions to imports of products must be based on legitimate concerns, not be discriminatory, and be proportionate to the objective pursued. According to global trade rules, imports of food products from third countries might be suspended if they present a serious threat to animal or public health. On the basis of the studies conducted and the opinion of EFSA, the Commission will consider whether restrictions must be imposed. I am sure this will be done very shortly.


  Agnes Schierhuber, im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Die heutige Diskussion ist unbedingt notwendig, um auf die Gefahren hinzuweisen, die das Klonen in sich birgt. Ich bin Neil Parish sehr dankbar, dass er die mündliche Anfrage an die Kommission gemacht hat. Eines ist ganz klar: Tiergesundheit bedeutet auch Lebensmittelsicherheit.

Wie wir wissen, gibt es verschiedene Arten von Klonverfahren: therapeutisches und reproduktives Klonen sowie die DNA-Klonierung. Heute diskutieren wir das reproduktive Klonen. Das reproduktive Klonen bedeutet, eine genetisch identische Kopie von etwas herzustellen: von Pflanze, Tier und vielleicht auch einmal – wenn wir glauben, wir müssen alle Grenzen überschreiten – vom Menschen.

Wenn es in der Tierzucht für Lebensmittel angewandt wird, möchte ich doch auf die Problematik hinweisen. Erstens: sehr hohe Ausfallrate. Wir wissen von den Amerikanern: Es überleben nur sehr wenige. Es ist daher finanziell unrentabel für die Nahrungsmittelversorgung. Der Klon hat von vornherein das genetische Alter des Originals, d. h wenn das Original eine sechs Jahre alte Kuh ist, ist der Klon ein Kalb, dessen Gene sechs Jahre alt sind. Beim Klonprozess kommt es zwangsläufig zur Schädigung des klonenden Genoms. Dadurch wird der Klon anfällig für Krankheiten und Parasiten.

Frau Kommissarin, beim Klonen über mehrere Generationen kommt es immer mehr zu einer Abnahme der genetischen Vielfalt, die für das Überleben einer Spezies unabdingbar ist, weil sie sich damit an die Veränderungen des natürlichen Lebensraumes anpassen kann.

Zum Schluss stellt sich die Frage, ob der Mensch sich anmaßen darf, in die natürlichsten Dinge des Lebens einzugreifen, selbst wenn es mit der besten Absicht geschieht. Was über Millionen von Jahren funktioniert hat, scheint keiner Änderung zu bedürfen. Ein Mensch lebt ohnehin viel zu kurz, um die Auswirkungen seines Tuns über lange Zeiträume zu erleben. Ich hoffe, dass es uns nicht so geht, wie dem Zauberlehrling von Goethe, wo es heißt: Die ich rief, die Geister, werd’ ich nun nicht los.


  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, a PSE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök úr! Teljesen egyetértek Parish elnök úrnak a javaslatával, itt kettő zéró-toleranciára van szükség. Először is az élelmiszerláncba semmiképpen ne kerülhessenek be klónozott állatok, ebben teljes az egyetértés közöttünk. Abban is teljes az egyetértés, és kérjük a Bizottságot, hogy semmiképpen ne lehessen behozni az Európai Unióba, importálni argentin, brazil vagy Unión kívüli klónozott állatokat. Ez a dupla zéró-tolerancia, amely azt hiszem, hogy a Parish úr a javaslatának a lényege. Itt elhangzott előttem is, Agnes Schierhuber is, Parish elnök úr is ezt elmondta, hogy ma még rengeteg a kockázat, nincs igazi, megfelelő kontroll és ellenőrzés, ugyanis nincs elegendő vizsgálati minta, nincs elegendő vizsgálati kísérlet, csak a sertésre és a marhára vonatkoznak a kísérletek, tehát rengeteg a kockázat. Tulajdonképpen azzal lehetne összegezni, hogy élelmiszerláncba ne kerülhessen, természetesen a géntechnológiai, biotechnológiai kutatásoknak dőreség, butaság lenne gátat szabni. Egy dolog a kutatás, más dolog az élelmiszerlánc, harmadrészt pedig hosszú, megbízható és az ipari szervezettől független kontrollra van szükség, független ellenőrzésre, több, hosszú időszakon át. Köszönöm a figyelmet.


  Mojca Drčar Murko, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, from experience with other issues that tackle food safety, as well as raising adequate questions linked to the relations between humans as the dominant species and the animals, we know that public perception depends very much on specific knowledge of the matter. Consumers are increasingly sensitive with regard to the suffering of, and injuries to, farm animals. Therefore, they have to be properly informed about the risks posed by the cloning of animals. An educational campaign is needed, explaining to them what an incredibly wasteful process cloning has been so far.

It was expected that EFSA would not find clear safety concerns related to food products from clones of farm animals, compared with conventionally-bred animals. However, EFSA also underlined in its recent report that the practice has major repercussions on the health and welfare of animals.

The issue raises societal problems, which advise us strongly to ban animal cloning for food, as well as the import of cloned animals and their offspring.


  Janusz Wojciechowski, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Nasza cywilizacja żyje z eksploatacji zwierząt i pewnie długo jeszcze tak będzie. Zabijamy zwierzęta dla wielu potrzeb, ale też stawiamy sobie pewne normy. Przynajmniej my, Europejczycy, odrzucamy okrucieństwo, ograniczamy cierpienia zwierząt, popieramy ich dobrostan. Zapisujemy w prawie, że zwierzę nie jest rzeczą.

Klonowanie zwierząt jest kontrowersyjnym osiągnięciem naukowym. Klonowanie zwierząt w celach gospodarczych jest natomiast etycznym nadużyciem. Jest to nie hodowla, ale produkcja zwierząt. Już nie na zasadzie taśmy produkcyjnej nawet, ale wręcz kserokopiarki. Z przyczyn etycznych powinniśmy to odrzucić. W imię szacunku dla zwierząt, ale również w imię naszego człowieczeństwa. Od przedmiotowego podejścia do zwierząt tylko krok do przedmiotowego traktowania ludzi. Od klonowania zwierząt już tylko pół kroku do klonowania ludzi. W imieniu Unii na rzecz Europy Narodów popieram rezolucję.


  David Hammerstein, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor Presidente, me pregunto ¿a qué esperamos para instaurar una moratoria contra la clonación de animales para alimentos? ¿A qué esperamos para aplicar el principio de cautela y evitar la importación de animales clonados? ¿A qué esperamos para dejar de tratar a los animales como meros objetos e infligirles sufrimientos innecesarios?

La oveja Dolly murió enferma, deforme. La experiencia de la oveja Dolly fue un fracaso. Sin embargo, parece que no hemos aprendido de la experiencia.

La clonación puede reducir la diversidad genética; puede producir una vulnerabilidad mayor a las enfermedades de los animales; puede generar una situación de más sufrimiento a unos seres que sienten, que sufren y que tienen dolor, como son nuestros hermanos y hermanas animales.


  Kartika Tamara Liotard, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik wil mijnheer Parish heel hartelijk bedanken en ik kan hem helemaal ondersteunen in wat hij gezegd heeft. Het is bewezen, klonen veroorzaakt dierenleed en tot die conclusie kwam de EFSA ook. Als wij het klonen van dieren voor de productie van voedsel toestaan, lopen we naast dierenleed en ethische bezwaren ook tegen de volgende problemen aan: het is sterk de vraag of de consument überhaupt wel gekloond vlees wil eten, het is onzeker hoe de veiligheid hiervan zal zijn en tot slot is het maatschappelijk debat over kloonvoedsel nog niet eens goed op gang gekomen.

Ik ben daarom best verontwaardigd over het feit dat de Commissie zelfs durft voor te stellen om klonen onder de definitie van de verordening over nieuwe voedingsmiddelen te laten vallen. Zij geeft hiermee indirect aan dat zij voorstander kan zijn van het klonen voor dieren voor de productie van voedsel. Dus vraag ik de Commissie met klem ook in dit verslag haar visie hierop te herzien. Gezien alle bezwaren roep ik de Commissie tevens op om zonder uitstel met voorstellen te komen voor een algeheel verbod op het klonen van dieren.


  Jim Allister (NI). - Mr President, it is right and natural to want to improve stock quality by breeding from our best animals. Artificial insemination and embryo transfer provide for that. Cloning, however, is quite different: it is, as the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency has observed, a quantum leap way beyond giving Mother Nature a helping hand.

Quite apart from other ethical issues and the danger of copycat science in the human field, animal welfare is a real concern. The premature ageing and health deficiencies seen in high-profile cloning cases that have made the headlines, such as that of Dolly the sheep, are good reminders of those welfare issues. Devoting more money to tackling animal disease would serve us better than experimenting with nature.

From a consumer perspective, there is also a food quality issue, since cloned herds would all share the same vulnerability to the same strains of disease, whereas genetic diversity is one of our best protections against rampant outbreaks of disease. In fact, whichever way I look at this subject, I can find nothing to convince me that animal cloning is right, necessary or in the public interest.


  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Jeżeli ochrona bioróżnorodności jest priorytetem dla Komisji Europejskiej, to nie powinno być mowy o klonowaniu. Chciałbym usłyszeć, jakie argumenty przemawiają za klonowaniem zwierząt na cele żywnościowe. Czy powinniśmy kierować się jedynie względami ekonomicznymi? Co z kwestiami etycznymi, społecznymi, zdrowotnymi?

Zanim podejmiemy decyzję o dopuszczeniu takiej żywności do sprzedaży na unijnym rynku, musimy mieć na taki krok przyzwolenie naszych obywateli. Sam nie jestem pewien, czy przełknąłbym kotleta pochodzącego od klonowanej świni, czy mleko od klonowanej krowy.

Zamiast żywności genetycznie modyfikowanej i tej pochodzącej od klonowanych zwierząt powinniśmy więcej myśleć i podejmować działania na rzecz powrotu do żywności naturalnej, ekologicznej, żywności zdrowej, bez zawartości chemii. Klonowanie pozostawmy nadal w sferze badań. Moim zdaniem droga od laboratorium do stołu czy widelca europejskiego konsumenta jest jeszcze daleka, bo wciąż istnieje zbyt wiele znaków zapytania. Z tego powodu, że wciąż wiele pytań pozostaje bez odpowiedzi, jestem przekonany, że pośpiech w tej materii jest niewskazany.

Poza tym Komisja nie powinna działać wbrew opinii naszych obywateli. Nawet jeśli produkty żywnościowe pochodzące z klonowanych zwierząt zostaną dopuszczone na unijny rynek, to jestem przekonany, że jeżeli zostaną dobrze oznakowane i ludzie będą świadomie podejmować decyzje o ich zakupie, to nie znajdzie się na nie zbyt wielu chętnych wśród unijnych konsumentów.

Wprowadzając produkty pochodzące od klonowanych owiec, drobiu, trzody czy bydła, zniszczymy wizerunek istoty europejskiego modelu rolnictwa, w którym tak wysoko oceniamy ochronę środowiska i dobrostanu zwierząt.


  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski (UEN). - Panie Przewodniczący! Ja także w pełni popieram propozycję pana Parisha, aby wprowadzić zakaz wykorzystywania klonowanych zwierząt do produkcji żywności. Jednakże od dłuższego czasu obserwuję, jak Komisja forsuje narzucanie państwom członkowskim takich rozwiązań prawnych, które mają doprowadzić do wprowadzenia do powszechnego obrotu, na masową skalę, żywności genetycznie modyfikowanej, a w przyszłości być może mięsa z klonowanych zwierząt.

W wielu krajach, w tym w Polsce, samorządy podjęły uchwały, iż całe regiony, a nawet kraj, powinny być wolne od GMO. Komisja nic sobie z tych uchwał nie robi i, lobowana przez koncerny przemysłowe, wymusza wprowadzanie do obrotu żywności modyfikowanej. Państwa Unii muszą przekazać społeczeństwu jednoznaczną odpowiedź: czy są za zdrową, naturalną żywnością czy też za modyfikowaną i klonowaną? Nie możemy być w tym względzie obłudni!

Chciałbym także zapytać Panią Komisarz, w jaki sposób zabezpieczy społeczeństwo przed nieświadomym nabywaniem żywności, w przyszłości ewentualnie klonowanej? Przecież nie jest ona i nie będzie specjalnie oznaczana na etykietach, ponieważ eksporterzy będą chcieli przemycać tę żywność do społeczeństwa europejskiego.


  John Purvis (PPE-DE). - Mr President, I am going to be the different voice in this argument, because, through the ages, man has manipulated the breeding of animals and enhanced their productivity to meet his needs. There is a clear continuum: natural service to artificial insemination, to embryo transfer, to embryo splitting, in vitro fertilisation, blastomere nuclear transfer, foetal nuclear transfer and now somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Every new development has been seen as too far, and each time the technique has been improved and perfected, the benefits have come through and the anticipated problems have faded away.

Now the farmers’ unions are beginning to foresee benefits to animal health and welfare through the use of cloning. The Food and Safety Agency says: ‘There is no indication that differences exist in terms of food safety between food products from healthy cattle and pig clones and their progeny, compared with those from healthy, conventionally-bred animals.’ Nor does it see any environmental risks – and there are benefits: safeguarding high-value animals and their genetics, conserving and even reintroducing endangered breeds, eliminating dangerous pathogens and their transfer internationally, improving productivity and competitivity, and encouraging research and development in Europe rather than elsewhere.

So why do we Europeans repeatedly fall into the knee-jerk trap of distrusting any new development and of rushing to ban new things? Look at what happened with GMOs. So let us discuss and debate, and base our arguments on science and facts. I urge the Commission to follow developments carefully, encourage research, clarify the science, defend the facts; but do not ban. Let us drop this inaccurate, illogical and misguided resolution.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). - Mr President, lest Mr Purvis think he is alone, let me try and walk a middle line. This is a very worthy debate and it is a shame it is being held at this late hour. I listened to the first part in my office and it was riveting – which can be rare for a European Parliament debate – because it is practical.

I would like to mention a number of points. What concerns me in the debate now is the link between genetically-modified foods and the cloning of animals. I am not among those calling for a ban on GMOs, because in Ireland we use a large volume of genetically-modified animal feed ingredients and need to continue doing that. The concerns on cloning, well voiced by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr Parish, are on the welfare side, and clearly there is concern that animals suffer. That is an issue that needs to be looked at.

Calling for a ban on cloned animals in food production may not address that issue if the research stage of that process is concerned. Therefore, while my immediate reaction as a Member of the Committee on Agriculture was to support this resolution – I am glad we raised this issue and applaud the Committee and its Chair for doing so – my gut instinct now is that Mr Purvis is perhaps on the right track, and that an outright ban might be a step too far. I await the Commission’s very considered opinion.


  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). - Mr President, let me first of all welcome the opportunity of holding this debate. I think it has been very timely.

This is a subject that gives great concern. What I do not like is that we in Europe do not have sufficient control to ensure that cloned animals do not enter or reach the food chain. I understand the need to allow animal breeding and development, and I understand fully what Mr Purvis is saying – and I have no wish to bring to an end the ability of science to develop in any way, shape, size or form – but I strongly believe that we must set in place clear criteria and controls. I share Mr Parish’s concern about the welfare of the animals. I do have great concerns about animal welfare, because a very high percentage of cloned animals suffer at a very early age.

Let me repeat: I do not oppose, or wish to stand in the way of, futuristic developments. In the past we have made many mistakes. Let us not do so on this delicate subject. Let us protect the food chain from cloned animals. I am opposed to them in the food chain.


  Androula Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the opinion of the European Parliament on this new technology and its consequences is of course of the utmost importance for me and I welcome the views of the honourable Members. In particular, I wish to say that EFSA’s opinion gives us new food for thought, and many factors need to be taken into account. I agree that novel food is not the right tool to deal with the question of food from cloned animals and this is something that can be discussed during our deliberations on the proposal for novel food.

I wish, however, to make a clarification here because I heard a number of speakers speaking about cloning and genetic modification as if they were one and the same thing. No: genetic modification and cloning are two separate techniques. Expert opinion states that cloning does not alter genetic material and clones are merely genetic copies of animals.

In finalising my comments, I wish to assure you that in any future actions the Commission will carefully examine all factors at play.


  Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.

Comunico di aver ricevuto la proposta di risoluzione(1) B6-0373/2008, a nome della commissione per l'agricoltura e lo sviluppo rurale.

La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 3 settembre 2008 alle 11.30.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 142)


  Magor Imre Csibi (ALDE), in writing. – Even if strict conditions are respected and EFSA concludes that cloned meat is equivalent to conventional meat, animal cloning for food supply is, to many people, a risky and morally unacceptable practice. The current level of suffering and health problems in cloned animals reinforces that claim. If conventional methods work, then why should we encourage a technique that causes so many animals to suffer and die? It neither improves breeding, nor food safety nor the security of provision. It clearly provides no obvious benefit to the consumer.

Furthermore, European consumers have, on several occasions, expressed their wish not to have food products from clones or the offspring thereof on their table. It is a legitimate call and sends a clear signal, so why are we even considering cloning for food supply in the first place? People want to have control over what they eat and they are concerned that cloning will ultimately be forced on them. If we do not wish to further alienate the public from the European project, I believe we had better listen to their will and enforce it. Therefore, I call for no cloning of animals for food supply.


  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE), písomne. – Nech mi dovolené počudovať sa pri čítaní textu tejto rezolúcie. Chcem v prvom rade povedať, že ju pri hlasovaní podporím, ale mám niekoľko poznámok:

paragraf B. keďže postupy klonovania vykazujú nízku mieru prežitia prenesených embryí a klonovaných zvierat,...veľa klonovaných zvierat zahynie v ranných štádiách života....

Aká by bola budúcnosť ľudstva, keby človek požíval rovnakú obdivuhodnú pozornosť a keby sme prestali zmrazovať ľudské embryá?

paragraf C. .....miera úmrtnosti a chorobnosti klonovaných zvierat je vyššia než v prípade pohlavne rozmnožovaných zvierat...straty a poruchy vo vysokom štádiu gravidity pravdepodobne ovplyvnia životné podmienky náhradných matiek,...

Aká by bola budúcnosť ľudstva, keby ak by celá spoločnosť zobrala vážne podporu matkám rodín, tak ako chránime náhradné matky u zvierat?

paragraf D. ...vzhľadom na súčasnú mieru utrpenia a zdravotných problémov náhradných matiek a živočíšnych klonov vyjadrila Európska komisia pre etiku pochybnosti o tom, či je klonovanie zvierat...oprávnené z etického hľadiska...

Aká by bola budúcnosť ľudstva keby táto komisia zobrala do úvahy utrpenie žien, ktoré sa stanú náhradnými matkami aby si zlepšili finančnú situáciu, stres žien po opakovane neúspešnom umelom oplodnení alebo dôsledne zakázala používanie ľudských embryí na výskumné účely, lebo je to morálne neprípustné.

Šťastné to zvieratá, lebo aj táto rezolúcia ukázala, že sú v istých prípadoch lepšie chránené ako človek.


(1)Vedasi processo verbale.

Aviz juridic - Politica de confidențialitate