Mike Lorrey wrote,
> How does this compare with natural conception? Doesn't a fair proportion
> of naturally conceived fetuses simply never lodge in the uterus or
> miscarry rather early in the pregnancy?
I don't know. I wouldn't mind miscarriages so much. I got the impression
that deformed animals were born. If they simply self-abort early on and
don't produce viable offspring, that is not a major concern to me.
> This is one more example, though, of the precautionary principle being
> applied. You can't get the safety margin down without experimenting, so
> saying you can't experiment until you get the safety margin down is
> simply imposing a ban by illogic.
Mike, let me be clear. I am not calling for a cloning ban. I want more
experiments to be done. I want human cloning to be done. I am merely
predicting that this is dangerous. The inventors of this technology, who
obviously support cloning, say that their technique produces a large number
of birth defects. They say that they have not figured out how to prevent
these, and neither has the doctor who is going to clone humans. If the
techniques work the same in humans as in animals, the inventors are
predicting abnormal or deformed humans could be born. This would set back
cloning research decades.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:05 MDT