EvMick@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/13/00 5:30:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
> retroman@turbont.net writes:
>
> >
> > Just because you didn't consent to the childs conception and birth does
> > not negate your responsibility for your biological offspring.
> >
>
> Interesting....
>
> Cloneing technology is not too far around the corner.....it's barely
> conceivable that ANY cell could be used to clone a person. Say...a hair
> follicle....
>
> Now imagine the trouble that would cause....
>
> Liable for any genetic descendent yousay?
That is the definite problem. Will legal precedent yield to
technological advancement? This is a conundrum that will be used to
restrict the technology, place requirements that all clones be created
only as authorized by the legal owner of that DNA, which is why a
person's unique genome shall become their property. Perhaps not
intellectual property, but their property nonetheless.
-- TANSTAAFLMike Lorrey
"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." --- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
"A person who wants a society that is both safe and free, wants what never has been, and what never will be." --- Thomas Jefferson
"It's a Republic, if you can keep it..." --- Benjamin Franklin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:47 MDT