Ankara writes:
> snip......
> >A significant minority of those who took part in the survey - more than one
> >in five - felt that reproductive cloning could also be justified on medical
> >grounds, if for instance it was the only way for a couple to have a child of
> >their own.
>
> Would the couple really have their own child? ...only one of the couple
> would reproduce, that is, have their own clone. Why bother with
> 'coupledoom' at all?
This is already a common practice in fertility medicine. Where one
partner is unable to contribute genetic material, a donor is used so that
at least the other partner is biologically the parent. Couples in such
dire straits seem to be happy with this solution, over the alternatives.
Cloning might be preferable in that it does not bring in any third party's
genes. I suspect that most couples struggling with infertility would
want the chance to raise a child which was a clone of one of the parents.
Even the one who is not contributing biologically loves their partner
and so would expect to love the child even more.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:05 MDT