A moral quiz for the anti-cloners

[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.

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.

[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.

QED

<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>

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.

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>

[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.

[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.

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>

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>

[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.

[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>

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
-----------------------------

Don't feed the trolls, it just encourages them.

[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.

[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>

[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.

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>

[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?

[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

[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>

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

[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.

[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.