The company ethics policy promises: "In the unlikely event that an animal is born with deformities or other problems, it shall only be euthanized if it is suffering or facing high probability of near-term suffering, and shall otherwise be placed in a loving home at GSC expense."
That's nice, but if, in the future, cat cloning is inexpensive and frequent, it's hard to imagine the company finding loving homes for any five-legged felines.
Pacelle says that cloning pets is wrong because it creates a new way to produce an overpopulated species. Worse, cloning could produce more rejects.
Genetic Savings' ace in the hole -- and Carlson knows how to use it -- is that folks like me feel like Puritans trying to argue what other people can and cannot spend their money on. Said Carlson, "In our society, people are free to spend their money as they fit."
True, but this issue isn't just about money, it's about life. It's about creating life while others are forced to destroy life.
Today, Genetic Savings wants to clone nine cats. What happens if the number reaches 9,000 and if the price falls, as the company projects? By then, it may be too late to create a law that covers this concern.
That's why a moratorium on cloning pets makes sense today. It's scary that one company can decide, "Hey, let's make cats," and do it, and then, it is precedent. Americans should at least discuss the ramifications before the practice has a chance to proliferate.
Failing that, socially aware people can decide to make pet cloning so unacceptable -- the social equivalent of driving drunk -- that the twits won't dare do it. They may not appreciate that they are tinkering with life, but shame is something even cats can understand. Well, some cats anyway.
Bernie Sanders Champions YUGE Profits for U.S. Corporations (But Only in Cahoots with Communists) | Humberto Fontova