In legislative battles and subsequently in
public debate, every new debate has to fit into an old format. New
streets are built on old roads that are built on old foot paths.
An example of a new issue getting into old ruts is human genetic engineering.
Revolutions
in the technology of gene sequencing, in vitro fertilization and gene
splicing created a totally new issue. By the mid-1990's it was
becoming apparent that technology would allow human beings to be
created with human engineered genes. But should they?
As a few intelligent people started to understand the issue they began recognizing the need for legislation to control the new technology. So what happened when the issue finally got to Congress?
The issue transmogrified into the old issue of pro-con abortion. The only real overlap of the issues is the existence of a woman's womb in both subjects. Abortion is about removing a live fetus from a womb to destroy it. Human genetic engineering is about placing an engineered multi-cell living cluster in the womb to implant and grow it.
So the pro-abortion legislators became the pro-anything goes for human genetic engineering. The anti-abortion legislators became 'no on human genetic engineering'. It makes no sense but that is how legislative bodies work.
Beware, if you have a new issue. In the U.S. nothing has happened in Congress once the issue became stalemated.
P.S. I worked on this issue in Japan and got the Japanese Diet to pass a law that no genetically modified human cells could be grown in a woman's womb; doctors who support this activity are liable to severe punishment.
An example of a new issue getting into old ruts is human genetic engineering.
As a few intelligent people started to understand the issue they began recognizing the need for legislation to control the new technology. So what happened when the issue finally got to Congress?
The issue transmogrified into the old issue of pro-con abortion. The only real overlap of the issues is the existence of a woman's womb in both subjects. Abortion is about removing a live fetus from a womb to destroy it. Human genetic engineering is about placing an engineered multi-cell living cluster in the womb to implant and grow it.
So the pro-abortion legislators became the pro-anything goes for human genetic engineering. The anti-abortion legislators became 'no on human genetic engineering'. It makes no sense but that is how legislative bodies work.
Beware, if you have a new issue. In the U.S. nothing has happened in Congress once the issue became stalemated.
P.S. I worked on this issue in Japan and got the Japanese Diet to pass a law that no genetically modified human cells could be grown in a woman's womb; doctors who support this activity are liable to severe punishment.