or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › A moral quiz for the anti-cloners
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A moral quiz for the anti-cloners

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
As a developmental biologist and a free thinker I sit securely with the majority of scientists that favor therapeutic cloning. I'm also part of the silent majority of scientists that favor reproductive cloning once the technique has been perfected. And by perfected I mean to the point at which primate experiments and genetic screening have made the technique even safer than traditional reproduction and not, like the anti-science people would have you believe, necessitating a pile of deformed babies. I am aghast at how so many people can act righteous and morally superior about preventing a technology that will save so many lives all for the sake of idealism. In my most bitter moments I sometimes wish that such people would sign a pact saying that they would never accept a cloned organ or cell therapy for them or there children (if they let there children decide, well that would be pro-choice, wouldn't it?). I mean will Bush really be against this technology when one of his daughters needs a cloned liver transplant due to excessive drinking?

So come now, anti-cloners, awe me with your superior moral reasoning by taking the following quiz. Justify your responses as you like (invoke God if you must, but remember that this is America, not the Taliban and you should be able to provide an objective reason for limiting someone else's freedoms).

Question 1:

You and your spouse have fertility problems. You go through IVF treatments and the doctors successfully produce one embryo. The odds of implantation with one embryo are 1 in 10 and your out of money. The IVF doc offers to wait for the embryo to divide a little and then split it into two, then four embryos so that you will have four shots at producing a child. Presume this technique is entirely safe (this is, after all how natural twins form). Do you assent or is it God's will (forgetting for a moment that God didn't want you to conceive in the first place) for you to have only one shot at it.

Question 2:

Say the IVF doc implants one of the embryos, but is miscarried in the first trimester due to naturally occurring deformities. Shortly afterward the gene responsible for causing such deformities is found and identified in the three remaining embryos (presume you answered yes to #2 or it "naturally" divided in the dish). The IVF doc offers to repair the defect in the remaining embryos using genetic recombination and try again. Presume the technique is 100% effective or, much more likely, 100% confirmable before implantation. Do you do it?

Question 3:

Let's say you (or your spouse) goes to term this time. You have a beautiful daughter who at the age of 12 is exposed to a toxic agent which requires a transplant with a cloned organ or she will die. The technique involves removing a skin cell from the child and cloning it into a fertilized embryo. Would you allow the lifesaving procedure if:
A. You had to use one of the remaining embryos kept in cold storage- manipulating it to turn directly (not harvested from a cloned person) into the required organ in culture?
B. The frozen embryos were destroyed by mistake and you had to use someone else's extra IVF embryos to clone your daughter's DNA into, but otherwise same as A.
C. You could clone your child's DNA into a fertilized chimp egg (due to the 98.9% similiarity of humans and chimps once your child's nucleus is placed in the embryo the egg becomes fully capable of growing into a full human adult- zero chimp DNA is retained, no chimp qualities passed, and most importantly no human embryos "sacrificed") then turn it into an organ in culture.
D. Same as C, but BEFORE cloning in your child's DNA you alter it's genes so that it can only develop into the required organ and, therefore, never constitutes a real human embryo?

Question 4:

Your daughter get's killed in a car accident at the age of 12 (let's say this happened instead of the toxic incident). Your still young and want another child, but you (or your spouse) can no longer produce eggs (even with IVF)
A. Would you take one of the remaining embryos kept in cold storage to term?
B. Let's say one of the remaining embryos was damaged, but the nucleus was intact. Would you allow that to be cloned into a donated egg presuming the technique is as safe as traditional conception?
C. Same as B, but with a chimp egg (again, no chimp qualities or genes are passed and no human embryos are destroyed, and the technique is proven to be no different in result than "natural" conception)?

Wonder what my answer's to the above questions are? You will probably be able to infer what they are by knowing that my justification in every case is simple- my daughter gets to live. And yet, somehow I'm morally wrong in the eyes of many.

P.S. I'm aware that for question #4 the cloned child is a distinct person from the donor, but nevertheless you do indeed have a living daughter if you answer "yes".

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #2 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>I am aghast at how so many people can act righteous and morally superior about preventing a technology that will save so many lives all for the sake of idealism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm aghast at how you show no understanding of other people's objections to these techniques. Are you ignorant of just don't care? Why is it so hard for people like you to understand that for other people is it wrong to "create life" just to "end" it for someone else gain.

I'm not taking sides on this issue but you show a lack on understanding and compassion for other people feelings on this issue.
post #3 of 48
If we don't have our ideals to try and live by, in the end what *do* we have? The word from self-righteous scientists that everything will be OK, just leave the driving to them (you)?

Sorry, cloning a human being is something that just doesn't sit right with me. Some ideas carry with them too much negative potential...this is one of them. You honestly think the scientific community at large is ethical enough and objective enough to always do the right thing where cloning is involved? Sorry. I don't. I may not know much, but I know yours is a cut-throat profession if there ever was one.

There is far too much greed in teh scientifc community for them to be entrusted with such a sensitive technology. There are other ways of improving transplant success rates and other medical problems. Cloning is not the answer.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #4 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>
I'm aghast at how you show no understanding of other people's objections to these techniques.

I'm not taking sides on this issue but you show a lack on understanding and compassion for other people feelings on this issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then take the quiz, edify me on your reasoning about how not having a baby in #1,#2, & #4 and letting your daughter die in #3 is the morally right thing to do.

Your vague objections seem particularly off the mark when options are available in each case to produce/save a child's life without ever destroying an embryo.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #5 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>

Then take the quiz, edify me on your reasoning about how not having a baby in #1,#2, & #4 and letting your daughter die in #3 is the morally right thing to do.

Your vague objections seem particularly off the mark when options are available in each case to produce/save a child's life without ever destroying an embryo.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Before that how about you try to understand that for a great many people in this country what you propose is nothing short of "playing god" and that using embryos for any purpose is killing.

Your unwillingness to understand other people is shocking. You don't even try as far as I can tell.
post #6 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>If we don't have our ideals to try and live by, in the end what *do* we have?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You have reason.

[quote]<strong>
The word from self-righteous scientists that everything will be OK, just leave the driving to them (you)?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm a scientist and I don't trust scientists. I'm ethically bound not to "trust" scientists. I evaluate data, I repeat experiments, I prove things for myself. It's wise advice for all people in all there pursuits.

[quote]<strong>
Sorry, cloning a human being is something that just doesn't sit right with me. Some ideas carry with them too much negative potential...this is one of them. You honestly think the scientific community at large is ethical enough and objective enough to always do the right thing where cloning is involved?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think any community - scientific, politcal, or religious satisfies those criteria.

[quote]<strong>
There is far too much greed in teh scientifc community for them to be entrusted with such a sensitive technology. There are other ways of improving transplant success rates and other medical problems. Cloning is not the answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but your going against way to much demonstrated success in life improving technologies to convincingly portray science as a whole as greedy and irresponsible.

All this and you've yet to take the quiz, or even offer a superior governing body for this technology as you seem so convinced that the same enterprise (science) that brought you antibiotics and vaccines is hell bent on deceiving you.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #7 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

Before that [taking the quiz] how about you try to understand that for a great many people in this country what you propose is nothing short of "playing god" and that using embryos for any purpose is killing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

IVF is killing? Using chimp embryos is killing? "Playing God?" I honestly don't know what that is supposed to mean. Epidurals used to be considered against God because they relieved the pain of child-birth which was considered God's sentence for Eve's deception. IVF was considered against God. It would seem that a lot of really good things were once considered under God's domain. But that is a theological discussion and as I said you can feel free to use whatever theological reasoning you want to justify your answers to the quiz (but as an American they hold no wieght in a court of law- try Afghanistan)

[quote]<strong>
Your unwillingness to understand other people is shocking. You don't even try as far as I can tell.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm, how would won try to understand anothers position? Let's see, maybe one would profer questions to be answered to clarify the opposing sides positions on specific scenarios...

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #8 of 48
QED
post #9 of 48
<strong>Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
Justify your responses as you like (invoke God if you must, but remember that this is America, not the Taliban and you should be able to provide an objective reason for limiting someone else's freedoms).</strong>

Hmm... the modus operandi of the argument is giving embryonic life full fledged human status. So it's like the abortion argument (except for the petri dish part). If you follow the Papacy, it's when sperm meets egg. Since these clumps of cells are humans, it would be a monstrosity to conceive these embryos and then harvest them, or to grow them and see the inevitable negative side effects. Therefore, it should be declared illegal just like certain sorts of human trials and experimentation is illegal.

I use the motto: if it's in a petri dish, it's a bunch of cells, if it's in a womb, it's life. (Nagging details will be worked out later.)

Gengineering, I'm all for it. It's like astronomy and physics in the gool old days. A lot of people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new and ever changing world. We're in the throes of evolution changing the fundamentalists' worldview (not to mention all of science sometimes). Gengineering is merely next.

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
post #10 of 48
I think that cloning of humans can cause awful things, however so was the discovery of nuclear power, yet in the end we all benifited.
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #11 of 48
Posted by Scott H.
[quote] Why is it so hard for people like you to understand that for other people is it wrong to "create life" just to "end" it for someone else gain. <hr></blockquote>

Mmmm...

Look at the Animal Kingdom...

Livestock...

Veggies...

Insects...

Life feeds off life...

Besides we are not talkin about little humans with arms and legs here... we are talkin about a small group of cells (over a million could fit on a needle -TIP-) that have no present function... they are not leg cells or eye cells, bone cells, blood cells... etc. we are talking about "blank" cells that can be designated to whatever purpose is needed... since they are cloned from the host they are "accepted" and supported by the body as "natural" cells...

you can identify them here in the growth process as Totipotent Cells...


The other possibilities are numerous and varied...

And if someone does want to clone themselves fully...

I dont understand what all the hubbub is all about...

They would have different fingerprints, different personalities, memories...

All humans are more alike than they are different anyway...

As for a complete human clone I would however perfect full primate cloning before I would start full human cloning trials...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
-----------------------------


[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
post #12 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>QED</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know if this means something else in the lingo of the internet, but in mathmatics it means Quite Easily Done and is used often times at the end of a proof. It would be ironic to use such a term after offering no flow of reasoning whatsoever and avoiding the very questions put to you.

Who else here thinks we won't see one single anti-cloner explain how it's morally justifiable to let their children die to spare the life of a speck of cells a thousand times smaller than a flake of dandruff.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #13 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>

I don't know if this means something else in the lingo of the internet, but in mathmatics it means Quite Easily Done</strong><hr></blockquote>

No it doesn't but you were almost right. Good enough for your work I guess.
post #14 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by FERRO:
<strong>Besides we are not talkin about little humans with arms and legs here... we are talkin about a small group of cells</strong><hr></blockquote>

In YOUR opinion. See that's kind of my whole point. Why don't you try to look at from the perspective of the people who are against this stuff. For them it IS life and death. Get it? For you it's research to save lives. For them it's killing human life to save another.

They believe deep down inside that that is the situation. They are not trying to be mean or cause someone to suffer needlessly. They just see a human being where you see a clump of cells to be picked apart.


I'm sure you don't understand nor are willing to understand the view point of the people who oppose this research.
post #15 of 48
Wasting a human life to save another is morally irresponsible. The stem cells that go into the creation of body parts loose their individuality when combined with the host human being and therefore die. But then again the host would probably die without the transplant. So it creates an important question, Which way should we go? Well I am happy to say I have the answer! We simply eat the host. Any person that is terminally ill and would die without a stem cell transplant should be consumed by the rest of society. Not only does this solution take care of world over population but it also saves the stem cells. It also supplies an important nutrients to other humans that otherwise would be hungry. These people are going to die anyway, why not eat them? So join me my friends and end this bickering once and for all.
<a href="http://www.eathuman.com" target="_blank">eathuman.com</a>
post #16 of 48
In reference to this: You honestly think the scientific community at large is ethical enough and objective enough to always do the right thing where cloning is involved?

[quote]I don't think any community - scientific, politcal, or religious satisfies those criteria. <hr></blockquote>

Right you are Nordstrodamus, right you are. Hence the slippery slope everyone talks about. Once we start down the path it will inevitably lead to serious abuses of the technology, almost surely all of it in the name of big money.

You know it's funny, I saw a woman last night on MSNBC who was bound to a wheelchair (I forget the exact cause) , which she used as an example of something that could eventually be cured if only we'd allow cloning research to go on unimpeded. And then she said something like "our lives our ending one day at a time while the anti-cloning people keep this technology from helping us."

Now, aside from the fact that many scientists and doctors openly admit that even *with* cloning, we are at least a decade away from any resultant "cures" of disease or paralysis - we seem to forget that illness (and by extension, death) is a part of life. It's an inescapable cycle, whether we like it or not, whether we can admit it or not.

Sickness, accidents, injuries...those are things which we will all endure to some degree during the course of our lives. This is part of the human condition, part of nature. It drives me nuts the way some of these protagonists try to sell "the next big thing", as if it will prolong our lives indefinitely or prevent us from suffering. Seems we're trying to become a "no pain" society. Talk about naive undertakings.

I'm all for curing cancer, helping the crippled to walk, and all the rest...but many of us seem to delude ourselves into thinking that drugs and vitamins and surgery can somehow make us immune to the ravages of time. We're all going to die, some of us more peacefully than others, some of us later in life than others. This is just a fact. So often we see these drug commercials using the word "control" in the context of what happens to us in life. Sorry, but we have a lot less control than we'd like to think. It would help us, in the course of these kinds of debates, to acknowledge that fact -- it might give some people needed perspective.

Either way, to portray cloning as the enabling agent for a miraculous band of medicines and physical treatments, based on how little we really know, is just blatantly misleading. We don't really have any clue if it will work or not, yet the proponents spin it like "if we could just be left alone, it would be a done deal." That's simply false.

Maybe it's an over-simplified viewpoint (I don't doubt that *something* good could *one day* come from cloning, if allowed to continue) but until the scientific and medical community can demonstrate that cloning human embryos *will* enable a cure for some very serious conditions (using clones from other species as an example perhaps)...the possible misuses of such a technology far outweight the potential benefits.

BTW, Nord, I will answer your quiz in a separate post.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #17 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>

No it doesn't but you were almost right. Good enough for your work I guess.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm, your right. It means "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"). I'll have to ask my mathmatics prof about that. I wonder if that is just the common layman interpretation. Still, even under this interpretation it stands as ironic because you have offered no line of reasoning, nor have you addressed the questions. Instead you wish to continue attacking my lack of understanding.

[quote]
<strong>Why don't you try to look at from the perspective of the people who are against this stuff. For them it IS life and death. Get it? For you it's research to save lives. For them it's killing human life to save another.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to accomodate there concerns. In every question there is an option to avoid the destruction of fertilized totipotent human embryos. Have you even read the questions?

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #18 of 48
[quote]
Question 1:

You and your spouse have fertility problems.
<hr></blockquote>
For the three distinct times we've tried, it worked. Not span of time/trying. So, not an issue for me.

[quote]
Question 2:

<hr></blockquote>
Again, not an issue. I wouldn't do IVF anyway.

[quote]

Question 3:

Let's say you (or your spouse) goes to term this time. You have a beautiful daughter who at the age of 12 is exposed to a toxic agent which requires a transplant with a cloned organ or she will die. The technique involves removing a skin cell from the child and cloning it into a fertilized embryo. Would you allow the lifesaving procedure if:
A. You had to use one of the remaining embryos kept in cold storage- manipulating it to turn directly (not harvested from a cloned person) into the required organ in culture?
B. The frozen embryos were destroyed by mistake and you had to use someone else's extra IVF embryos to clone your daughter's DNA into, but otherwise same as A.
C. You could clone your child's DNA into a fertilized chimp egg (due to the 98.9% similiarity of humans and chimps once your child's nucleus is placed in the embryo the egg becomes fully capable of growing into a full human adult- zero chimp DNA is retained, no chimp qualities passed, and most importantly no human embryos "sacrificed") then turn it into an organ in culture.
D. Same as C, but BEFORE cloning in your child's DNA you alter it's genes so that it can only develop into the required organ and, therefore, never constitutes a real human embryo?

<hr></blockquote>

Would not use embryonic anything.

[quote]

Question 4:

Your daughter get's killed in a car accident at the age of 12 (let's say this happened instead of the toxic incident). Your still young and want another child, but you (or your spouse) can no longer produce eggs (even with IVF)
A. Would you take one of the remaining embryos kept in cold storage to term?
B. Let's say one of the remaining embryos was damaged, but the nucleus was intact. Would you allow that to be cloned into a donated egg presuming the technique is as safe as traditional conception?
C. Same as B, but with a chimp egg (again, no chimp qualities or genes are passed and no human embryos are destroyed, and the technique is proven to be no different in result than "natural" conception)?

Wonder what my answer's to the above questions are? You will probably be able to infer what they are by knowing that my justification in every case is simple- my daughter gets to live. And yet, somehow I'm morally wrong in the eyes of many.

P.S. I'm aware that for question #4 the cloned child is a distinct person from the donor, but nevertheless you do indeed have a living daughter if you answer "yes".

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Would not use embryos for anything at all.

Gosh, though, that is some fine FREE THINKING you got there!!!

Our latest child, by the way, was diagnosed with a fatal defect that was supposed to cause death within minutes after delivery. She is now six months and fat, fat, fat! Not a thing wrong with her. Not her laughs, not her dirty diapers, her screams. Nothing wrong. Had we gone with our highly-intelligent, modern doctor's suggestion of abortion, I would have gotten a little more sleep at night, and missed one more important fixture in my life.
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
post #19 of 48
[quote]Question 1:

You and your spouse have fertility problems. You go through IVF treatments and the doctors successfully produce one embryo. The odds of implantation with one embryo are 1 in 10 and your out of money. The IVF doc offers to wait for the embryo to divide a little and then split it into two, then four embryos so that you will have four shots at producing a child. Presume this technique is entirely safe (this is, after all how natural twins form). Do you assent or is it God's will (forgetting for a moment that God didn't want you to conceive in the first place) for you to have only one shot at it.<hr></blockquote>


I would consent (not assent), because the embryos in question are of the mother and fathers making (even if the lab helped), and the goal is to produce a child which will develop in the mothers womb. If it works so be it, if not, the embryo in question was not intentionally created and sacrificed with some other purpose in mind.

Human reproductive cells have only one purpose: to create a new and unique human lifenot to create isolated tissues, organs, chemicals or anything else. You can make this argument outside the bounds of religion. Empirically, it is self-evident. Just as red blood cells have a specific and limited number of natural functions, so too do reproductive cells.

To take it upon ourselves to re-define the purpose of such cells so that biotech and pharmaceutical companies can make a mint is what irks me. They act as if they're crusaders for health, when what they are first and foremst is crusaders for cash. And before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, I will let you know I've worked for a large pharmaceutical company in the past and have witnessed many interesting discussions about the FDA drug approvals and such.

[quote]Question 2:

Say the IVF doc implants one of the embryos, but is miscarried in the first trimester due to naturally occurring deformities. Shortly afterward the gene responsible for causing such deformities is found and identified in the three remaining embryos (presume you answered yes to [#1] or it "naturally" divided in the dish). The IVF doc offers to repair the defect in the remaining embryos using genetic recombination and try again. Presume the technique is 100% effective or, much more likely, 100% confirmable before implantation. Do you do it?<hr></blockquote>


Again, yes, because the objective is the same, to use the product of the man and womans reproductive cells, to help them bring a child into the world. Again, embryos are not being created and destroyed with some other purpose in mind.

[quote]Let's say [the mother] goes to term this time. You have a beautiful daughter who at the age of 12 is exposed to a toxic agent which requires a transplant with a cloned organ or she will die. The technique involves removing a skin cell from the child and cloning it into a fertilized embryo. Would you allow the lifesaving procedure if:

A. You had to use one of the remaining embryos kept in cold storage- manipulating it to turn directly (not harvested from a cloned person) into the required organ in culture?<hr></blockquote>


No.

And your implication of only one solution makes no sense. Why would an organ taken from a healthy donor of the same age and blood type (say someone who died in a car accident) be any less viable a solution than your manufactured organ?

Further, your scenario is questionable at best (designed to support your point of view, rather than being a realistic example). If a person has been exposed to a toxic agent, to the extent that he/she needs a new liver or kidney (for example), it is quite likely they will need far more treatment (and perhaps transplants) than just one to live a normal life. Hence using your idea, multiple embryos must be created and destroyed (and who knows how many times) simply to create the organs and tissues needed (which by themselves dont guarantee success).

[quote]B. The frozen embryos were destroyed by mistake and you had to use someone else's extra IVF embryos to clone your daughter's DNA into, but otherwise same as A.<hr></blockquote>


No. Same reasoning as A.

[quote]C. You could clone your child's DNA into a fertilized chimp egg (due to the 98.9% similarity of humans and chimps once your child's nucleus is placed in the embryo the egg becomes fully capable of growing into a full human adult- zero chimp DNA is retained, no chimp qualities passed, and most importantly no human embryos "sacrificed") then turn it into an organ in culture. <hr></blockquote>


Nope. Because for one thing monkey reproductive cells are meant to produce monkeys not humans (again, this has nothing to do with religion. For another, youre still creating an embryo that has the potential to form a human life, but is destroyed so that it might create something else. Everything in the natural world has a specific purpose and is a part of a specific orderwe have no right to disrupt that order.

[quote]D. Same as C, but BEFORE cloning in your child's DNA you alter it's genes so that it can only develop into the required organ and, therefore, never constitutes a real human embryo?<hr></blockquote>


Not sure I understand this part of the question, so I wont answer it.

[quote]Question 4:

Your daughter gets killed in a car accident at the age of 12 (let's say this happened instead of the toxic incident). Your still young and want another child, but [the mother] can no longer produce eggs (even with IVF).

A. Would you take one of the remaining embryos kept in cold storage to term?<hr></blockquote>


No.

And the fact that youd ask casts doubt on your own understanding of life. Despite the mantras of Fight Club (great movie) each of us is unique in physical makeup and time. We are here for a short time, we live our lives as only we can, and we die (wont get into what does or doesnt happen after that because I dont know). The point is, there is something very askew about thinking we have the right to re-create a loved one, simply because we didnt want them to see them die. There can be only one as they say.

This is something that is beyond our jurisdiction we dont have control over such things as when we are born or when we die. They are as they are and thats it. We must deal with it. Trying to avoid death by creating a carbon copy of the person who died, is naïve in the extreme.

[quote]B. Let's say one of the remaining embryos was damaged, but the nucleus was intact. Would you allow that to be cloned into a donated egg presuming the technique is as safe as traditional conception?<hr></blockquote>


Nope.

[quote]C. Same as B, but with a chimp egg (again, no chimp qualities or genes are passed and no human embryos are destroyed, and the technique is proven to be no different in result than "natural" conception)?<hr></blockquote>


Nope, and whats more, my daughter wouldnt want it any other way. How about you? Lets say youre 12 years old and YOU die tomorrow. And of course, your or mother or father has the ability to see to it that you are re-created using DNA and cloning technologies, so that they might not suffer so much. Whaddya say? Should there be more than one of you? What if you dont turn out so well the second time around (make bad decisions and such)maybe they should disown you and try again with another clone?

[quote]Wonder what my answer's to the above questions are?<hr></blockquote>

Not to be rude, but at this point, not only do I not knowI dont care.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #20 of 48
Thread Starter 
If you agree that no community (religious, political, scientific, or otherwise) is more adept than another at handling the ethics of a new technology such as cloning then why is the default position political (to legislate against) or religious (and in particular which religion). Furthermore, if your primary concern is that the technology is developed responsibly is it the prudent move to force the technology to be developed without government oversight in off-shore locations?

As for your contention that we as a people are to greedy for a healthy, longer life I must simply submit that this is a personal decision and I have no problem with mentally-capable adults deciding to deny blood transfusions, transplants, anti-biotics or whatever life extending technologies they consider wrong so long as they do not presume to enforce their opinion over others.

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>
Now, aside from the fact that many scientists and doctors openly admit that even *with* cloning, we are at least a decade away from any resultant "cures"...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The pace of science is unpredictable and it is entirely possible that more simple applications (cloned blood lines instead of organs) could be only a year away as several promising demonstrations have already been done in mice. The distance away is irrelevant, however, because it is the speed which is important. If cures do eventually result then whatever time was wasted due to legislation slowing the research results in lives lost where they could have been saved.

[QUOTE]<strong>
Either way, to portray cloning as the enabling agent for a miraculous band of medicines and physical treatments, based on how little we really know, is just blatantly misleading. We don't really have any clue if it will work or not....
</strong>

One of the reasons you hear the word "promise" being used with regards to cloning is that provided we can make genetically identical cells and convert them into different tissue types (this part has already been demonstrated) there are most definately life savings applications. Their is absolutely no research that suggests that this cannot be a viable life saving technology.

[QUOTE]<strong>
I don't doubt that *something* good could *one day* come from cloning, if allowed to continue) but until the scientific and medical community can demonstrate that cloning human embryos *will* enable a cure for some very serious conditions (using clones from other species as an example perhaps)
</strong>

There have been many demonstrations of repairing damage to spinal cords and alleviating hereditary diseases in mice. I'm not sure what your threshold is, but I believe it most likely has been met.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #21 of 48
Posted by Scott H.
[quote] In YOUR opinion. See that's kind of my whole point. Why don't you try to look at from the perspective of the people who are against this stuff. For them it IS life and death. Get it? For you it's research to save lives. For them it's killing human life to save another.

They believe deep down inside that that is the situation. They are not trying to be mean or cause someone to suffer needlessly. They just see a human being where you see a clump of cells to be picked apart.

I'm sure you don't understand nor are willing to understand the view point of the people who oppose this research. <hr></blockquote>

I had about five good paragraphs with witty retorts and some very good points... but I erased it becuase I knew you would just tell me "I'm sure you don't understand nor are willing to understand the view point of the people who oppose this research." no matter what I had written...

And "We" are unwilling to understand someones viewpoint...???

It would seem that you accuse everyone who supports cloning of "unwillingness to understand the oppositions viewpoint", yet seem to have remained neutral on the subject yourself... what side are you on...???

The very same fight occured with the flourishen of innoculations and vaccines...

Many people thought it was wrong, they believed it was playing god... Many people still believe that blood transfusions are "playing god" and will refuse just aboout everything that could help them... And thats their oppinion... And I respect that... becuase it doesnt push their oppinion/beliefs unto me... If someone wants to clone some cells from their body to manufacture some "body part" they need to live... clone away... its their cells.. their oppinion... why cant you respect that...??? People who refuse to use blood transfusions are respected... the same should be expected for people who wish to use a technique to grow body parts from from their own cells...

Are you just neutral troll...

Everybody has an oppinion... Some people believe in the tooth fairy, santa clause, bigfoot, lockness monster, various religions... all without any scientific evidence... they just belive... Just becuase alot of people believe something, that does not validate that belief...


E PLURIBUS UNIX
-----------------------------
post #22 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by JRC:
<strong>

Would not use embryos for anything at all.

Our latest child, by the way, was diagnosed with a fatal defect that was supposed to cause death within minutes after delivery. She is now six months and fat, fat, fat! Not a thing wrong with her. Not her laughs, not her dirty diapers, her screams. Nothing wrong. Had we gone with our highly-intelligent, modern doctor's suggestion of abortion, I would have gotten a little more sleep at night, and missed one more important fixture in my life.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm glad to hear things turned out good. What was the name of the defect if I might ask? I take it from your answers that you wouldn't even use the chimp embryos even if the technique never resulted in a viable human embryo and your daughter (the very same one that you love right now) would definately die. (Here I'm presuming that you believe there might actually be some condition for which hope alone might not prevail).

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #23 of 48
Don't feed the trolls, it just encourages them.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #24 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>
Human reproductive cells have only one purpose: to create a new and unique human lifenot to create isolated tissues, organs, chemicals or anything else. You can make this argument outside the bounds of religion. Empirically, it is self-evident. Just as red blood cells have a specific and limited number of natural functions, so too do reproductive cells.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm afraid your making an implicit religious perspecitve in divining "purpose." I could just as well assert that my blood's "purpose" is to keep ME alive and, therefore, object to donating blood. I can say the same thing about interfering with the purpose of a virus. Who am I to use a vaccine?
[quote]<strong>
To take it upon ourselves to re-define the purpose of such cells so that biotech and pharmaceutical companies can make a mint is what irks me. They act as if they're crusaders for health, when what they are first and foremst is crusaders for cash. </strong><hr></blockquote>

And despite their greedy motives they still generate life saving treatments. But fine, let's assume all biotech companies are evil. What's to hold them back from their evil pursuits? The law, or more specifically U.S. Law? Push too hard and they'll move research off shore as they should.

On question #3:

[quote]<strong>
No.

And your implication of only one solution makes no sense. Why would an organ taken from a healthy donor of the same age and blood type (say someone who died in a car accident) be any less viable a solution than your manufactured organ?

Further, your scenario is questionable at best (designed to support your point of view, rather than being a realistic example). If a person has been exposed to a toxic agent, to the extent that he/she needs a new liver or kidney (for example), it is quite likely they will need far more treatment (and perhaps transplants) than just one to live a normal life. Hence using your idea, multiple embryos must be created and destroyed (and who knows how many times) simply to create the organs and tissues needed (which by themselves dont guarantee success).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Moral dilemas don't have workarounds you have to face them on their intent. And yes there are real world scenarios for why someone would need the exact genetic match in a transplant. Say they had three previous transplants and in each case their body rejected it, or they have an allergy to the immunosuppressent medication.

If you want you can take another shot at this question (as it would seem you are hesitant to accept that you would have to let your daughter die). As for D- to clarify this scenario is meant to specifically avoid the objection that human embryos are destroyed. Since the DNA would be altered to specifically become the required organ BEFORE it was implanted in the chimp egg, it could never become a human.

As for question #4, I added a postscript in the original post to clarify that the cloned daughter would be a unique person. You seem to be objecting to what you perceive is the intent of the parents to bring back their daughter. What if there intent is simply to have another heriditary child and in this scenario their only option is to take one of the remaining embryos to term? If the parents are totally aware that the new child would be no less unique than if they had twins in the first place then what's the harm? Hell, what if they did have twins in the first place (implanting two instead of one of the split embryos)- you have a problem with that?

As for your question about how I would feel if I where the dead twelve year old who was cloned it would again depend on my parents intent. I certainly wouldn't deny them their right to reproduce.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #25 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>

I'm glad to hear things turned out good. What was the name of the defect if I might ask? I take it from your answers that you wouldn't even use the chimp embryos even if the technique never resulted in a viable human embryo and your daughter (the very same one that you love right now) would definately die. (Here I'm presuming that you believe there might actually be some condition for which hope alone might not prevail).</strong><hr></blockquote>

We personally wouldn't use anything that is out of the ordinary. I feel immensely lucky that we batted 1000, because I know that others cannot. It also kind of scares me that we are so fertile, since we don't use pills/condoms and such. I forget off the top of my head what that diagnosed/predicted genetic malady was. I tried not to dwell on it at the time. My sister is the assistant that works with our OBGYN and they all thought it was pretty serious. But, we decided to go on even if the child only had 'minutes'. And, there was indeed some complications. But everything is fine now. The genetic marker was a reading that was in effect the opposite to down's syndrome, and is always fatal they said. I'll have to look it up again.
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
post #26 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>If you agree that no community (religious, political, scientific, or otherwise) is more adept than another at handling the ethics of a new technology such as cloning then why is the default position political (to legislate against) or religious (and in particular which religion)?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you misunderstand...I don't think *any* governing body (scientific, religious, political or otherwise) can be trusted to always make the right choices and do the ethical thing where cloning is concerned. Hence it shouldn't be enacted as a standard medical practice for the purposes we've discussed. Someone will find a way to abuse it badly, so long as there is big money to be made (and there clearly is).

[quote]<strong> Furthermore, if your primary concern is that the technology is developed responsibly ,[s it [a] prudent move to force the technology to be developed without government oversight in off-shore locations?</strong><hr></blockquote>

People act of their own free will. We wouldn't be "forcing" anyone to do *anything*. All we can do, as a nation, is ensure that we do the right thing. If we ban something like cloning and some greedy off-shore bastards start their own lab, that is something they (and not we) are responsible for.

People are responsible for their own actions and decisions; we often forget that in America. It's always someone else's fault when something goes wrong. Just like we can't mandate laws across teh globe, we won't be able to mandate this either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have a little ethical conviction and nip things in the bud (at least IMO) here in the U.S. Call it, "leading by example."

[quote]<strong>As for your contention that we as a people are to greedy for a healthy, longer life...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I never said anything like that, please be careful when quoting me. As a common courtesy, you can see plainly I do the same for you. I doubt you misquote me intentionally, but this is a sensitive topic. It's hard enough for me to accurately put into words how I feel, without being misquoted....


[quote]<strong>The pace of science is unpredictable and it is entirely possible that more simple applications (cloned blood lines instead of organs) could be only a year away....</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have three letters for you: F D A
Think ten years, not one. Example: they've had something as simple in concept as a male contraceptive pill for years in the lab. The only reason we don't have it in the pharmacy is because of the F D A bureaucracy and politics (not health reasons).

[quote]<strong>
One of the reasons you hear the word "promise" being used with regards to cloning is that provided we can make genetically identical cells and convert them into different tissue types (this part has already been demonstrated) there are most definately life savings applications. Their is absolutely no research that suggests that this cannot be a viable life saving technology. </strong><hr></blockquote>

The burden of proof is for you and your peers (to produce), not for me and mine. If you want to convince people like me cloning is the right thing to do, you have to prove (somehow) that the medical applications will be on par with all the "promises." Until then, forget it.

[quote]<strong>
There have been many demonstrations of repairing damage to spinal cords and alleviating hereditary diseases in mice. I'm not sure what your threshold is, but I believe it most likely has been met.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps, but even then only in part. Either way this issue is young enough in its roots that I doubt enough research and comparitive analysis has been done...such that we can say "if we can cure mice, we cancure people."

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #27 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>The only reason we don't have it in the pharmacy is because of the F D A bureaucracy and politics (not health reasons).</strong><hr></blockquote>Sorry to jump in, but there are two things you said that I wanted to take issue with.

First, the FDA doesn't take a long time because of bureaucracy. They take a long time because the studies take a long time, and the studies are necessary for, yes, health reasons. They have to prove the effectiveness of the drugs, and they have to prove that the drugs are not harmful.

As it is, the FDA is critcized all the time for allowing drugs to be sold that people say shouldn't have been because they didn't do enough studies on (children, women, people with x disease) and so they may be dangerous.

I never understand it when people criticize the FDA like this. ?? Especially because later you say: [quote]The burden of proof is for you and your peers (to produce), not for me and mine. If you want to convince people like me cloning is the right thing to do, you have to prove (somehow) that the medical applications will be on par with all the "promises."<hr></blockquote>Well, usually Congress doesn't pre-emptively outlaw procedures, which seems likely to happen now. Usually the research would be done in order to meet the burden of proof you want. If it's outlawed, that burden of proof can't be met.
post #28 of 48
BRussell:

Maybe I should've been a little more specific with regards to the male contraceptive thing. Basically . I've had numerous discussions with people (on the pharmacuetical side, and doctors as well) as to why something that should be so simple to evaluate and certify, is still years away from the marketplace. The answer, in short, was politics.

So while i agree the FDA must absolutely, on every clinical trial do a thorough job of evaluating a drug or treatment and its side-effects, etc...a lot of the time required for NDA's and such is because of red tape. Now you could argue that red tape is just a manifestation of how careful the FDA has to be during the drug review process...but some of it is just big government - plain and simple.

Sorry if what I said was confusing. I was merely trying to point out that there is no way in hell a [cutting-edge] medical procedure like cloning human tissues and organs would only take a year or two to clear through the FDA. It would take likely take 5-10 years, if not more...and that's after the years of R&D that would likely preceed such a clearance.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #29 of 48
Thread Starter 
I'm sorry if I misqouted you, I was only trying to sum up your responses as the interlaced qouting is bloating the size of these posts and, for some reason, when I hit reply it only qoutes the last paragraph automatically (witness my failed attempts at marking up qoutes).

Forgive me if I make a mistake in summing up again, but I take it that you default into legislating against cloning because you do not think it can be developed responsibly by anyone and should, therefore, not be ventured into? Furthermore, even faced with the reality that the technology will be developed offshores (I happen to know of a few biotechs who have already had the foresight to establish foreign labs for this very reason) you feel the U.S. would be taking a moral stance, however ineffective, in halting such research here. Am I right?

As for my misrepresentation of your attitude about the pursuit for life extending technologies can you clarify on the simple point as to whether you or anyone else has the right to limit one's pursuit of additional life in the case of cloning and not in the case of antibiotics?
[quote]<strong>
I have three letters for you: F D A
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The delay argument still applies. More people die the longer the research is delayed even if it must (upon completion) go through even more delays. The net effect no matter how you slice it is delay = death. And no, I'm not talking about skipping important controls and safety protocols, but just uneccessary limitations on research. Also, given the nature of cloning there are a lot of applications for which it would be fastracked. If the only question is whether a genetically identical cell type has been produced, but all the subsequent techniques are already approved then their is only one question to be addressed.

As for the last thing about burden of proof, what do you require?

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #30 of 48
[quote]As for my misrepresentation of your attitude about the pursuit for life extending technologies can you clarify on the simple point as to whether you or anyone else has the right to limit one's pursuit of additional life in the case of cloning and not in the case of antibiotics?<hr></blockquote>

I fail to see the similarities between the two (cloning and use of anti-biotics) - either in how they were developed or how they are used. Not being sarcastic; can you elaborate on what is behind your question?
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #31 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by JRC:
<strong>

We personally wouldn't use anything that is out of the ordinary.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

So in answer to question #3 you would let your daughter die even if you could cure her with cloning and not destroying any human embryos? I'm a little thrown by the ordinary comment since at one time every medical technique was new.

You sound like someone who truly appreciates the joys of having a baby. If you don't mind could you tell me if you would object to less fortunate, inftertile couples using IVF (i.e. would you make it illegal if you could). And for that matter, to make this a little more personal, would you forbid me from doing any of the things in question #3 to save my own daughter?

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #32 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>

I fail to see the similarities between the two (cloning and use of anti-biotics) - either in how they were developed or how they are used. Not being sarcastic; can you elaborate on what is behind your question?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Take question #3- say you have two daughters. One is sick from an infection and needs antibiotics to live. The other 's situtation is as stated in the original question. You have the same options available including the one that doesn't require an human embryos to be used.

Presuming you will object as before because the monkey egg has a "purpose" let me ask if you would do the procedure if it involved a cow egg (ACT is actually using cow eggs for cloning experiments)? Make no difference, you say? Cow egg still has a purpose? Do you eat beef? Would you make it illegal to eat beef?

Ok, I had to edit in just to apologize for a hint of sarcasm there. But please consider the questions anyway.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #33 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>

So in answer to question #3 you would let your daughter die even if you could cure her with cloning and not destroying any human embryos? I'm a little thrown by the ordinary comment since at one time every medical technique was new.

You sound like someone who truly appreciates the joys of having a baby. If you don't mind could you tell me if you would object to less fortunate, inftertile couples using IVF (i.e. would you make it illegal if you could). And for that matter, to make this a little more personal, would you forbid me from doing any of the things in question #3 to save my own daughter?

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm no expert on the question you posit. But anything destroying viable human life/tissue I would not use to help my daughter. I am, however, not up on all the particulars of cloning. I had read somewhere that a lot of medical knowledge was gained from Nazi butchers. That's unfortunate, and none of us here lent a hand in that. However, I would NOT throw away that knowledge gained, or other advances made from that knowledge. I'm sure this will fall out similarly. Advances will be made on things that I particularly would not do myself or condone, but if KNOWLEDGE (not tissue, etc) were advanced, I'd be hard pressed to toss it aside.

I do not voice any opinions to people doing things like IVF just because I don't need to do that. I do feel, however, that is a different ethical question altogether.

Free will is important. I would have no power in your decisions at all. But, depending upon the circumstances, I'm sure there are things I'd condone and things I would not.

I focus mainly on what I need to do to help my family, friends. Not what to prevent others from doing. How long have we had laws outlawing murder? Does that prevent someone from willingly killing? No. So, in the end, it's up to the individual. I make my choices and others make theirs. I'm mostly proud of my current state of decision making. However, like many, I have gone from one influence to another to get here. Everyone is at different stages in their progression in life, and I recognize that. Many people eventually flip 180 degress and perhaps even back again on topics. That's what life's all about. I make bad decisions everyday, but I try to learn from them and improve them.

But this area is so fledgling I think many of the assumptions have yet to be proven and won't be for quite some time. But it won't be me exploring this frontier, it WILL be someone else. I cringe at the thought of dozens of kids getting polio FROM the polio vaccine every year. But, knowing that it benefits many more helps even it out. There's always a balance to these things. The trick is in finding them, while respecting everyone else's right to oppose it.

JRC
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
post #34 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by JRC:
<strong>

I'm no expert on the question you posit. But anything destroying viable human life/tissue I would not use to help my daughter. I am, however, not up on all the particulars of cloning. I had read somewhere that a lot of medical knowledge was gained from Nazi butchers. That's unfortunate, and none of us here lent a hand in that. However, I would NOT throw away that knowledge gained, or other advances made from that knowledge. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You hilight an interesting aspect of the way our "leaders" are approaching the issue of cloning. Every politician I see against cloning seems to agree that the technology will go forward elsewhere and that it most likely will result in life saving treatments. At the same time, few doubt that if true life saving treatments emerge that we will pass on them when that time comes. To me this is the very epitome of abdicating responsibility and a failure of leadership.

But seeing even further, it is most likely that using the information derived from embryo research we will one day be able to bypass the use of human embryos altogether (along the lines of the proposition I offer in #3C & D). From the perspective of people who think embryos should enjoy the same status as thinking human beings this would be morally equivalent to utilizing the Nazi data. We've seen such reasoning in effect already with Bush's cowardly solution to the stem cell dilema.

[quote]<strong>
Free will is important. I would have no power in your decisions at all. But, depending upon the circumstances, I'm sure there are things I'd condone and things I would not. </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's all I ask. So long as you respect my right to determine if my daughter's life is worth more than a speck of cells I will respect your right to do the same (even if you conclude your daughter's life isn't). I would debate whether you are making a moral decision, but I would not presume the right to hold the force of law over you. Nor would I limit your reproductive options provided cloning had been carefully regulated to ensure it was as safe as traditional conception.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #35 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:
<strong>
....

Presuming you will object as before because the monkey egg has a "purpose" let me ask if you would do the procedure if it involved a cow egg (ACT is actually using cow eggs for cloning experiments)? Make no difference, you say? Cow egg still has a purpose? Do you eat beef? Would you make it illegal to eat beef?

Ok, I had to edit in just to apologize for a hint of sarcasm there. But please consider the questions anyway.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm. Are you perhaps trying to bring unrelated factors into the argument to cast doubt on my opinion about reproductive cells having one specific purpose? What does eating beef have to do with anything -- since the dawn of man, we have gathered plants and hunted other animals as a source of nourishment. I don't want to get into semantic arguments about vegetarianism here. Do you?

Just say what you mean and ask what you mean; don't give me all these convoluted examples. Is there something we don't know about antibiotics? Are they made with the assistance of cloning technology? Is that what you're getting at -- that we've been using a cloning-based medical treatment (antibiotics) for years but never knew it? If so, explain the relevant similarities to the treatments you are proposing. I honestly don't see any.

That is, I fail to see any real correlation between the use of cloning as we've described it -- creating human embryos for the express purpose of destroying it to create something else (tissues, organs, chemicals) -- and the use of traditional antibiotics.

Sorry for the delay...I forgot to come back here and post for whatever reason. No need to apologize for the sarcasm, I do it all the time.

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #36 of 48
I am not going to say anyhting about cloning but I do want to say somthing else to JRC. I applaud your descion on your baby. I look up to you now.

Strider
G4 733 Quicksilver
512MBof RAM
40gb HD
64MB Geforce 3
CD-RW/DVD drive
Reply
G4 733 Quicksilver
512MBof RAM
40gb HD
64MB Geforce 3
CD-RW/DVD drive
Reply
post #37 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>

Hmm. Are you perhaps trying to bring unrelated factors into the argument to cast doubt on my opinion about reproductive cells having one specific purpose? What does eating beef have to do with anything?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now, your probably right that a few different issues have gotten mixed in here so let me see if I can "say what I mean" and separate them out.

To refresh- the scenario I presented was that your daughter was going to die without a transplant with an organ of an exact genetic match (as required because she was allergic to immunosuppresent drugs and had already rejected previous transplants). One option was to take your daughter's DNA, clone it into an embryo from another species (monkey or cow) and then add the appropriate growth factors to produce the required organ directly in culture.

The first issue is quite simple- under this scenario would you let your daughter die or would you clone the organ?

The second issue relates to this concept of "purpose" you evoke. To be blunt I think you are unintentionally making a theological argument. Purpose implies intent of design (by who?) and we are agreed (I assume) that one's subjective beliefs cannot be forced onto another. You may object to this characterization and instead suggest that even looking at the role of the embryo through a Darwinistic perspective one would conclude that the embryo's function is to grow into an adult. You'd be right in this observation, but you would be left with a whole new set of problems because the very role of technology is to make new (sometimes called unnatural) uses of things.

The scenario about using a cow embryo is really just to illustrate how difficult this course of reasoning is to justify. If you suggest that it is immoral to use a cow egg to save your daughter's life because it has a purpose then all other uses of the cow come into question. We use cows for food, for clothing, for decorating car bumpers (the bull's horns that is), for making glue, ice-cream, for teaching med students, and a bunch more uses I'm sure. I think you would have a hard time convincingly arguing why you would kill a cow to have tasty burger, but not kill one to save your daughter's life.

Lastly- I think I see where we are seeing cross-eyed on the issue about comparing anti-biotic use to applications of cloning. From your perspective you see a big difference between co-opting the defense mechanism of some slime molds and likewise manipulating for our benefit a specific subclass of human (and possibly even cow) cell types. I see no difference because I do not presume purpose for either. I propose a better question to get to the point of the matter. What if the technology became available to convert blood cells into neural cells and your daughter required a neural cell transplant to live? If your going to argue the "purpose" of things you cannot suggest that blood cells have a purpose to become neural cells. If you do, then the same applies for embryos.

[quote]<strong>
Sorry for the delay...I forgot to come back here and post for whatever reason. No need to apologize for the sarcasm, I do it all the time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey, take your time. I think we are the only ones kicking this thread around right now so there's no rush. That your willing to discuss it this long at least demonstrates that you are giving the issue a lot more thought than the knee-jerk "Your Playing God!" crowd.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #38 of 48
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Strider:
<strong>I am not going to say anyhting about cloning but I do want to say somthing else to JRC. I applaud your descion on your baby. I look up to you now.

Strider</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know the exact nature of JRC's situation as he was unable to name the defect his daughter was at risk for so I am not able to speak as to the wisdom of his decision to go forward with the pregnacy. I'm glad, certainly, that things turned out well for him, but I would like to temper some of the irrationality regarding such matters. I think it is a dangerous message to always celebrate those who just hope for the best and go against reason (again, without more info, I can't comment on whether this is the case for JRC).

I know that when odds of 1 chance in 100 are given that means we will see the 1 in a 100 that beat the odds on the evening news and not see the other 99. For some conditions, this doesn't mean just the emotional suffering of the parents, but some defects assure that a child's only existing moments are excruciatingly painful. Some might think it more heroic to spare someone suffering, but that is the topic of a separate thread.

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #39 of 48
[quote]Originally posted by Strider:
<strong>I am not going to say anyhting about cloning but I do want to say somthing else to JRC. I applaud your descion on your baby. I look up to you now.

Strider</strong><hr></blockquote>

I appreciate your reply. When we received the first word about that, it was really like a huge punch in the stomach. It just took our breath away. But, it only took, literally, a few seconds to know what we were going to do. It just reinforced in me that no man or scientific principle is infallible. And, that's all a distant memory now.
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
post #40 of 48
[quote]I am not able to speak as to the wisdom of his decision to go forward with the pregnacy.<hr></blockquote>

What a jackass.

"First do no harm." People die. This is something that you really have to accept - not just gloss over, before you understand why some can't justify cloning. People die. It's as natural a part of life as eating, yet it's sometimes regarded as something we should prevent. Certainly, I'd like to live a long life. But I'd never want another life to be ended or jeapordized (especially without consent) just to prolong my own. That's what my objection boils down to: I could never justify the destruction of a human for my personal gain.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › A moral quiz for the anti-cloners