Clone Rights United Front 

When? Where? How?
History of The Movement ] Mission Statement ] Editorials ] Official Documents ] Reference Materials/News Stories ] Personalizing The Issues ] Links ] Visuals ] Message Boards & FAQ's ] Contact Us ] Who is Randolfe H. Wicker? ] Cloning News Feeds ]


Return to Editorials


By Randolfe Wicker, December 9, 1999  

Half of all fertility clinics have staff members skilled enough to perform somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Physicians protecting reproductive medicine are equally divided between the sexes.

The first child conceived though cloning will most likely be a latter born twin of a female fertility doctor.

Females are easier to clone than males.

The right of a surrogate mother to the children she bears, as defined by state law, ranges from having unquestioned authority to keep that child, to limited parental authority, to no parental claim whatsoever.

The first child born, conceived though cloning, will almost certainly be borne by an unknowing surrogate mother.*  Should any complications arise, the surrogate mother-to-be would simply be told: “This pregnancy has to be terminated.”

Fertility clinics will assure everyone that “protocols” will be established to monitor any human cloning.

The FDA is already preparing such guidelines regulating this medical procedure. It has no authority whatsoever in this area. Such guidelines will not withstand a legal challenge.**

For the “Chris Columbus” of human cloning to wait for “approval” by either a fertility clinic or the FDA would be equivalent to the original Christopher Columbus awaiting funding from “The Flat Earth Society” for his voyage to the New World.

Like “Dolly” her birth announcement will be delayed.  Not necessarily for scientific publications but simply as a precautionary procedure to verify the child is completely normal and healthy.

The originator and child will instantly become the two most famous people in the world.  Millions of dollars will accompany this fame.  Movies will be made. Books and documentaries will follow.  Like the Dionne quintuplets of the 20th Century, this fame and fortune may prove both a burden and a blessing.

Remember, you heard this first from Randolfe Wicker, founder Clone Rights United Front at, member Board of Directors, The Human Cloning Foundation at

These unborn children; I wish them Godspeed and good health.

 Let them lead the way.  I’ll just be one of many that follow in their safe and proven footsteps.



   *Lori Andrews, The Clone Age “Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology”, Chapter 7, “Wombs for Rent”, pages 103-123. Henry Holt, Publisher

   **Mark D. Eibert, Esq., Reason Magazine, “Clone Wars – The forces of government gather in fear of hypothetical clones. (Excerpt below; to see full text of article

  In January, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it planned to "regulate" (that is, prohibit) human cloning. In the past, the FDA has largely ignored the fertility industry, making no effort to regulate in vitro fertilization, methods for injecting sperm into eggs, and other advanced reproductive technologies that have much in common with cloning techniques.

An FDA spokesperson told me that although Congress never expressly granted the agency jurisdiction over cloning, the FDA can regulate it under its statutory authority over biological products (like vaccines or blood used in transfusions) and drugs. But even Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), one of the most outspoken congressional opponents of cloning, admits that "it's hard to argue that a cloning procedure is a drug." Of course, even if Congress had granted the FDA explicit authority to regulate cloning, such authority would only be valid if Congress had the constitutional power to regulate reproduction--which is itself a highly questionable assumption (more on that later).

  Nor have state legislatures been standing still. Effective January 1, California became the first state to outlaw human cloning. California's law defines "cloning" so broadly and inaccurately--as creating children by the transfer of nuclei from any type of cell to enucleated eggs--that it also bans a promising new infertility treatment that has nothing to do with cloning. In that new procedure, doctors transfer nuclei from older, dysfunctional eggs (not differentiated adult cells as in cloning) to young, healthy donor eggs, and then inseminate the eggs with the husband's sperm--thus conceiving an ordinary child bearing the genes of both parents. Taking California as their bellwether, many other states are poised to follow in passing very restrictive measures.

   In addition to the above reference, Mark Eibert’s legal arguments are developed in much greater detail in the current issues U & I Magazine (See below).

  Mark D. Eibert, Esq., “Human Cloning: Myths, Medical Benefits and Constitutional Rights.”  This article is adapted from a speech and multimedia presentation on cloning given by Mark D. Eibert, Esq., at the annual joint meeting of the San Bernardino County Medical Society, the Riverside County Medical Society, and the San Bernardino County Bar Association, on September 23, 1999.  It is being reprinted by the permission of the author, who retains all rights in it.


Religious Group Hijacks Human Cloning Movement

Posted by Randolfe Wicker , Oct 11,2000,20:13 Post Reply        Forum
So, today, October 10th and 11th, we have a religious group announcing that they have $500,000.00 donated to clone a female child who died at the age of ten month.
In Montreal, Canada, the Raelians had a press conference to show to the world that they had 50 willing surrogate mothers for the first child conceived through cloning.
The Washington Post mused on the idea that a "religious cult" with many willing egg donors and many willing surrogate mothers was "technically positioned" to achieve what the mundane fertility industry has stridently denied any interest in doing- cloning a human being.
So, here we are, the most important movement in the world today with so much "input" to give but with no takers because their 30-second sound bite mentality makes them "time slaves" to a religious cult that has hijacked the "real" human cloning movement.
It all just fills me with disgust. Why has this come to be? Why isn't sane rational discussion of this issue even given its day in court?
I foresee the covers of Newsweek, Time, even the Economist, with pictures of the "new prophet" Rael holding the first child conceived through cloning in his arms.
Rael is to enter a race car contest, today, in Montreal (unless I am mistaken). I "put my life at risk" having a volunteer Raelian (Masseuse by profession) woman drive me to UFO Land.
While the tires screamed on the entrance ramp and my blood pressure soared (contemplating eternity) on the way to UFO Land, I was "assured" by my driver and friend in the backseat that "Rael is very comfortable at 150 miles per hour".
Now, if Rael happened to "crash" today/tomorrow, I would suddenly find myself a supporter of their efforts to clone him.
Otherwise, I really don't believe that they deserve to be in the "driver's seat" of this movement.

Cloningly yours,

Randolfe H. Wicker

Return to Editorials

Please return to Clone Rights United Front index Back to Top or visit our sister sites The Reproductive Cloning  Network at  or The Human Cloning Foundation's Home Page at: