scerir wrote:
>
> Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> writes:
> And banning reproductive cloning is a rather arbitrary decision
> about who should be allowed to have children with who and
> how, largely based on the genes=integrity view (which often is stated
> in silly terms like the right to have an unique genome, which make
> twins somehow victims of mutual integrity infringement).
>
> Yes. Indeed.
> And also, in that Charter, a great emphasis on "solidarity"
> but not on "subsidiarity".
twins would be dual artistic recipients, just like two subsidiary
companies having the right to use the parent company's trademarked logo.
The cloning thing is, obviously, in conflict with the concept of twins.
Are twins or other multiple identical births caused by fertility drugs
clones (due to their artificially stimulated origin) or not? By their
strict definition, they are. Most people would say they were not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:30 MDT