> It's not an embryo? If this strange opinion gets accepted, it might imply
> that a being grown from such an `organism' is not a human. But surely the
> law is not such an ass.
Actually it has more to do with medicine than the law.
Until it implants its a blastocyst. It doesn't become an embryo
until it becomes a parasite on the woman carrying it.
Its probably even questionable whether it can even be considered
a blastocyst since those result from normal fertilization while
clones use nuclear transfer.
The problem with laws is that if you don't write them anticipating
technological change, it can rapidly get away from you. I posted
the pointers to the U.S. laws a few months ago -- as I recall they
were written more recently (and more restrictively) than the British
Law(s) that the court ruled on.
Does anyone know whether one could be prosecuted for having the
procedures done in international waters?
Of course its going to get very interesting if it turns out that
any relatively "close" egg will do. That means you will be able
to use chimpanzee eggs and avoid one of the more expensive
and risky parts of the process (hormone treatments for egg
maturation and surgery to harvest them). If the development
of artificial wombs proceeds then we can eliminate the
requirement for a female host as well.
Its going to get interesting out there. Rock N Roll.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:19 MDT