From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 04:43:15 MST
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 ABlainey@aol.com wrote:
> I would agree with Lee's Healthy > Unhealthy > Null explanation and
> would site Steven Hawkin as an example. Is he better off dead now? Is
> Christopher Reeve? No
Did Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeve wound up in that state
deliberately? Did they at some point have to make a deliberate decision
bringing them onto a different fork on road? They didn't. In both cases it
was an accident. I very much doubt Christopher Reeve would be riding at
all, if he knew the risks associated with that.
> Even If a clone was born profoundly disabled, I couldn't say it was
> better off dead. In fact I would say the opposite. Some of the
> happiest people I know are disabled and after all. Isn't happiness the
> point of life?
Did I get that right? Are you proposing that we produce defective children
by an undebugged process on purpose?
> I can only see cloning as a good thing. It is inevitable that there
> will be clones born with abnormalities. Doing it the good ole fashion way
No, it is not inevitable. All you need is to figure out how to reset the
genome, and everything is dandy (provided no other difficulties appear).
> isn't exactly the safest thing in the world. These cases of abnormality due
How about some actual numbers, comparing the defect rate in normal birth
rate and cloning instead of engaging in boolean argumentation? The world
is not black and white, so let's not treat it that way when argumenting.
> to the cloning process will rapidly decrease as our knowledge grows and I
> honestly cant see any clone coming to term with such an ailment that would
> render their life not worth living.
I disagree vehemently. If you did that to me on purpose for no good
reason at all (cloning doesn't result in any enhancement) I'd sue you, or
worse.
> Most of the arguments I have heard against cloning are about the
> irrational fears of what we will do with these clones. Great unstoppable
> armies, better make them immune from every pathogen on the planet! Slave
> labour, please! Hideously deformed mutants,!
Strawman.
> Why don't we just replace the word Clone with Twin in every doom sayer
> paper on the subject and reread them? I know a few Twins and funnily enough
Why don't we replace the world clone with 'identical twin with defects
produced artificially', and reread them.
> they have never tried to take over the world, have never been used for
> scientific experimentation, have the same civil rights as the rest of us and
> as far as hideously deformed mutants. well they may not be the pretiest
> people, but I think that is a bit harsh.
Are you doing this on purpose, or can't you really tell the difference
between a defective clone produced by a current procedure and an identical
twin?
> Didn't we have most of these arguements and fears when IVF first produced a
> baby? Can anyone remember?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST