Dear Editor, Here we go again with Senator Hatch's 'petri dish' logic. According to him, you can end the life of a 'cloned' human being as long as that life was created in a petri dish, not a mother's womb. I fail to understand why the 'womb' human being is viable and should be reverenced and protected - even if only a few days old - and the 'petri dish' human being can be terminated and used for research.
One question begs to be asked, could these cloned, fertilized eggs be placed in a mother's womb and mature to full-term babies?
The answer seems to be yes because the proponents of cloning are adamant about prohibiting this.
In that case these embryos are days-old human beings - the same as if they were in a mother's womb. The decision to not put them in a womb but end their lives for research purposes is exactly the same as harvesting them directly from a mother's womb. Which means the egg is no longer in a womb and therefore no longer a human being, according to Hatch.
By changing the circumstance the egg is in, it changes its value to Senator Hatch.
If life begins at conception, either normally or through cloning, a day-old embryo is a human life.
Human life at its very beginnings should be reverenced and protected and cherished - not sacrificed on the altar of research.
Why can't Hatch seem to understand this?
Deena King
Sandy, Utah