From: Damien Broderick (thespike@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 13:02:03 MST
Hal Finney:
> "If you were a disabled person with a hereditary defect, would you
> attempt to procreate (supposing that embryo screening to eliminate the
> defect were not possible)? Would it be right for you to clone yourself
> when it is perfected?"
>
> In my experience we move too quickly from the question of what is right
> to the question of what is allowed. These are very difficult and complex
> issues, but all too soon we are trying to decide the matter not only for
> ourselves, but for our neighbors as well.
Another fine post by Hal, but I wonder how easy it is to make this
distinction when the basic physical or mental integrity of a new human being
is at stake. Suppose a grown phocomelus wishes to have a child just like
herself? This might be arranged via access to thalidomide at her embryo's
appropriate developmental stage. Is this a right course of conduct? Ought
other adults in the vicinity to intervene to prevent it? If thalidomide
doesn't work, might she then ethically truncate the baby's limbs by surgery
to ensure that she has brought into existence some more people like herself,
with her special rich idiosyncratic way of being-in-the-world? (I should
stress at once that this is a thought experiment; I don't know of any tragic
victim of thalidomide who would consider for a moment doing this to another
human. But we know that many congenitally deaf or dwarfed people are eager
to do the equivalent.) But is it easier to reach a personal or public policy
conclusion about such a case than it is for the imposition of what one might
construe as mental deformities, via strict upbringing in preposterous or
harmful memetic systems? And which of us should then 'scape whipping?
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST