Re: Better never to have lived?

From: ABlainey@aol.com
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 11:36:48 MST


In a message dated 06/01/03 15:17:47 GMT Standard Time, eugen@leitl.org
writes:

>
> > 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.
>
> Once they are born, yes. The point is not that, however. The point is that
> our current actions will result in a highly probable outcome: normal or
> defective. Given our current knowledge, there is a clear choice between
> these two alternatives.
>

Agreed.

>
>
> > 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.
>
> Little disagreement there. Let's look at the numbers. Given healthy
> parents, we have to compare with normal birth. Given sterile parents, we
> have to look at IVF defect rate (loosely defined, including spontaneous
> aborts) for comparison. If we were to discuss something resulting in
> actual policy we would have to gather enough data to compute probabilities
> with sufficiently small error ranges.
>

This is something I hope is being done.

> > 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
>
> Not quite, if you factor in the low success rate. Otherwise I agree: wen
> need statistically significant chimp data before we touch people.
>

Right. I think the race to the finish line has caused the runners to skip
part of the course. I haven't seen any results of primate cloning
experiments. It seems to have gone straight from bovine to human cloning.

>
> > 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
>
> Yes,. Depending on motivation for cloning (because clearly there has to be
> a point for it if we're looking at vanilla couples) the risks have to
> outweigh the benefits.
>

Agreed. I had assumed for sake of my arguments that cloning would mainly be
used in cases where other methods of reproduction were not available. That in
mind, the risk of not reproducing outweigh the risk of reproducing a
potentially defective clone. I had in mind cases such as parents that have
done the whole infertility and adoption route without success. Where they
then adopt disabled children from abroad.

>
> > 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
>
> I don't know. I can't tell it in advance. You'll notice that a number of
> people terminate their lives for no externally visible reasons. So clearly
> there is a choice to make, and no one can make the choice but the person
> affected.
>
> > 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
>
> There are no relevant identity arguments I'm aware of. The matters are
> really simple. The time of the decision is past already. You can only
> apply feedback to the parties who made the decision according to your
> subjective evaluation of said decision.
>

Agreed

> > exist. There would also be a Hope of improvement. If I had never existed,
>
> Once you're there, the point is moot. But we're talking about the event
> resulting in you, and the decisions associated with that.
>
> > 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.
>
> Not really. You just lump two separate issues together, wheras I treat
> them separately. This results in a different evaluation.
>

I can understand that. On separating them, I am not so certain of my
evaluation although I do tend toward my original view. This is admittedly
biased by my current view of survival at virtually any cost.

> > 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
>
> Actually, the clone would have more rights to sue because there is no damn
> reason why people should clone people. Unless explained, cloning looks
> like a frivolous decision with the clone being the one winding up with the
> bill for it. Doesn't look quite right, does it?

Again my assumption for the case of cloning was that no alternative was
available. So I would agree with the above.

> > 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.
>
> It's a description of a type of argument where you ascribe to your
> opponent obviously ludicrous beliefs she does not hold, and then tear them
> down with a flourish, then claiming victory.
>

Guilty <G>

> > Why would there be artificially produced defects? If you mean, defects
> > resultant from the process then that is one thing. Defects that are
> produced
>
> Yes.
>
> > artificially would point to something different and more sinister.
>
> No. You can decide to clone or not to clone. The decision to clone
> resulting in defects whereas decision to not to clone resulting in no
> defects clearly shows that cloning defects are artificial. They need not
> be there. We put them there deliberately. Because we made a bad judgement,
> or because we're actively evil.

Hmmm, not sure I agree with that. To clone or not to clone, that is the
question. We also have the choice to reproduce naturally which could also
yield negative results. If you are saying that the defect only occurred
because of the artificial method of reproduction, then yes the defect is
artificial in nature, but only as a result of the process itself. I cant
agree that we put them there deliberately unless the actual defect itself was
intended as in the actively evil case. I think the defect resultant of bad
judgement, that being the choice to create the clone. Is more akin to two
parents choosing to reproduce when they are both known carriers of a genetic
defect. If the risk of defect is known and the chance is still taken, I can't
see the undesired defect being considered as artificially or deliberately
created. It is however damn irresponsible.

>
> > 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.
>
> The substitution would have been valid, except cloning is a deliberate
> process resulting in defects, whereas natural twins are the low-defect
> result of a natural process largely outside of our control, currently.
>
> > 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
>
> No. They are not genetically identical. You can tell them apart due to
> their gene activity pattern. You can very easily tell them apart, because
> one has visible defects, and the original is healthy. It's a bad xerox of
> a twin, not a real twin.
>

> > 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.
>
> No. The result is NOT the same. See above.

My bad. As I said, my use of the word twin was for emphasis in my Strawman
routine and was an aside to the defect discussion. I am not aware that the
process of cloning changes the genetic material from that of the original. I
would agree that even if the genetic code itself were identical, there would
be differences between the genetic material used to create the clone and the
material used to create the original. For one, the telomeres would be shorter
in the clones material. I would hazard a guess that this type of difference
would cause different gene activity patterns possibly because the clones
material is the same chronological age as the original, whereas the clones
body is new. If the original was aged 30 when the material was taken and they
went on to develop a genetically triggered ailment at 60. I would expect the
clone to develop the same ailment at roughly the age of 30. This may or may
not be the case.

>
> > 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.
>
> Do not look at mitochondria. Look at the sick clone and the healthy
> counterpart.
>
> > Again, why would the clone be defective? What have civil rights of
>
> The clone will be defective because the current process sucks. As you
> know, different medical procedures result in vastly different outcomes. It
> is very important to get it right. If you do it wrong, the results can be
> disastrous, and typically are. Apparently tiny things gone wrong in a
> procedure result in life and death, or worse.
>

Agreed

Alex



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST