From: ABlainey@aol.com
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:41:28 MST
In a message dated 05/01/03 11:47:07 GMT Standard Time, eugen@leitl.org
writes:
>
> 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.
>
This is a given and isn't my point. Which is to site examples of lives that
have great suffering that are still worth living.
> > 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?
>
Not at all. I am proposing that we make every effort to produce clones free
from any defects and that we also except the Fact and simple truth that
defects can and will occur despite our best efforts. Not only that, but more
importantly. The clones that are not perfect or far from it are still worthy
of life.
> > 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).
>
I would tend to agree with your second point to overcome defects that are due
to the process itself or predisposed genetic defects that can be corrected at
the time of cloning. However I think it is inevitable that clones will be
born with abnormalities. We cannot foresee every possible detail that may
cause a clone to have defects. These details do not only include our mastery
of the Human Genome. Other factors such as the health of the mother,
Physical, Chemical or biological trauma to the unborn clone and countless
other things could result in a clone with defects. Nature has been splicing
our genes for millions of years and even when offspring are genetically fine,
there can still be other problems. That is why it is inevitable that some
clones will be born with defects. Substitute 'defect' for illness/pathology,
etc. if that helps.
> > 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.
>
I think the dataset on the side of the clones is a little too small for a
valid argument. I would say without hesitation that if had the choice of
being born through natural methods or cloning at present. I'd opt for the
natural method. The current defect rate in cloning would seem to be
incredibly high. This still doesn't remove the natural problems of
reproduction from the argument. It just helps highlight my previous point
that defects can and will occur even if the actual cloning procedure is
perfect. My statement says that the world is not black or white and that the
possible outcomes of natural reproduction and cloning are very grey. Neither
is perfect and the outcome of cloning is still reliant on the natural process
of gestation.
> > 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.
>
I don't quite follow you.
Are you saying that me being either the cloning doctor or parent. If you were
the clone and you were born with a defect that caused your life to be of such
a low standard that you felt it wasn't worth living. Then you would sue me or
worse?
If so then I will try to clarify what I said. I personally believe
that where we draw the line demarking what is and isn't worth living depends
entirely on your personal beliefs. If I had an accident that paralysed me and
left me on a ventilator, entirely dependent on others for survival. My life
would still be worth living. Likewise if I were born with a similar
condition my life in my view would still be worth living. Arguments of
Identity aside, there would still be a conscious chain of though that would
exist. There would also be a Hope of improvement. If I had never existed,
there would never be a conciseness or any hope of improvement. So as you can
see, I set the line pretty damn low, I imagine that you may not.
In any case, a clone would have no more right to Sue than any person
living today that has been born with deformities or ailments. If it was shown
that these were caused by or were knowingly not prevented by the doctors.
Then of course a clone would have a right to sue, just as anyone has the
right today.
> > 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.
Please elaborate. Strawman is not something I am familiar with. If its a gibe
at my response to the comedic scaremongouring that some idiots have raised
against cloning. Then Yes I know I shouldn't lower the level of the thread to
include such inane arguments.
>
> > 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.
>
Why would there be artificially produced defects? If you mean, defects
resultant from the process then that is one thing. Defects that are produced
artificially would point to something different and more sinister.
My suggestion to replace clone with Twin was purely as a response to
the ridiculous arguments or fears such as Armies of clones. It was mearly
meant to remove the unknown irrational fear element that the word Clone
connotes and replace it with something of virtually equal meaning that
laypeople are familiar with.
> > 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?
>
Doing what on purpose? When I say Twin I am of course referring to a
genetically identical twin resultant of a division of the ovum into two
genetically identical people. This Twin is greatly different in creation to
the cloning of a living person. however the result is the same. Two
genetically identical people. The clone is for argument sake, just a twin of
a living person that was created and born at a later time.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that a clone of a twin is a triplet,
but I may say that it is a twin of a twin. Could this not be considered
correct? The point being that a Clone and a twin only differ in the method of
creation. The result is the same.
The only exception to this I can see is where mitochondria are brought
into the equation. It could be that a Clone could have different
Mitochondrial DNA to the person that was the original. Even in this case, the
essence of what makes the clone identical to the original e. g the genes,
will be identical as in a twin.
Again, why would the clone be defective? What have civil rights of
clones and twins and irrational fears of cloning got to do with the
possibility of a clone having defects? The point was that a clone should and
would have every civil right that a person of natural reproductive creation
would have. As is the case with IVF.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST