The Pet Cloning Debate Really Can Get More Ridiculous
Wonkette put us on to this press release from DefendPetCloning.org, put up by I can't figure these folks out. The market for this service is, what, thirty oil barons and their kitties a year, and yet both sides of this awfully silly debate seem dead-set on beating it to death. California has actually introduced a bill to ban pet cloning, reports Rick Weiss of the Washington Post, who also should have better things to do, and the the anti-vivisection folks are so happy that they too have created a web site, called, you guessed it, nopetcloning.org.
But seriously, who is the bright guy who wasted a legislative aide's time putting this bill into the mix? And where do the pro-kitty folks get these ethicists who speak on behalf of and against pet cloning? A blog. In fact there is quite a little feud brewing on the kitty cloning front between Stanford's David Magnus and Penn's Autumn Fiester, both of whom are being waved about like mascots by the disputants. Frankly the only thing more amusing than a battle over the cloning of pets is a battle of wits between these two pals - of ours and of each other. And yes, they also have better things to do.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
I love my cat and I think that this column is insensitive. My vet showed me this posting and asked me what I think. I think you are being disrespectful to millions of us who love our pets very much and want copies of them so that we can have a litter of wonderful, identical animals. What is wrong with twins? I want twenty of my cat and if I have a million dollars, which I do, who are you to stop me. I dare you to try. Liz B
- by elizabeth Brother on Feb 25, 2005 at 11:58 AM | link