• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Therapeutic Cloning


  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#181 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 29 January 2005 - 12:38 AM

I'm sorry Randolfe. Do you want me to put the gloves back on?

You can continue posting with your cavalier attitude until your hearts content, but don't think you're fooling anyone.

This statement shows that you have conceded the political aspect of this debate:

I think I have made it clear in earlier postings that my genotype, "the formula of me", is not the now-living virtual person writing these words.


Indeed, my genotype does not constitute "me" and therefore reproductive cloning (ie, the perpetuation of my genome in the gene pool) does not further the cause of Physical Immortality. Repro cloning is clearly a peripheral issue for the Immortalist memecomplex and, in light of the political costs involved, it would be wise public policy if the two maintained a healthy degree of separation at this juncture.

The other issue (which, Randolfe, I think is of great interest to us both) is still open to debate. Is reproductive cloning ethical? As I have said previously, I think there is much more common ground between us than there is disagreement. I have none of the traditional ethical objections to reproductive cloning except one, efficacy. Solve the problem of efficacy and I have no objections. None.

What you have been arguing on this thread is, in effect, F*** the efficacy. I want reproductive cloning now. I have voiced my strong opposition to this opinion. Now however, it appears that you are moderating your views somewhat...

-----------------------QUOTE----------------
BENZEALLY SAYS:"I don't think reproductive cloning should be outlawed, but I do think there should be a moratorium on it until we are able to produce healthy clones of, say, chimps, with a similar success rate to natural reproduction. Otherwise you are impinging on the rights of your later-born twin by placing him at undue risk of suffering from a serious illness!"
----------------------QUOTE-----------------------

This is reasonable.  I had the opportunity to attempt being cloned at a fertility clinic in India.  I choose not to take the risk simply because I did not want to risk having a later-born twin burdened by handicaps.  I agree with the clarification (not printed above) which simply says it would be wrong/immoral to purposely cause a child to be born with terrible handicaps.


Randolfe, if you find this position reasonable then can you do me a big favor and answer this one really simple question?....WHAT THE HELL ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT???!?!?!?!

Edited by DonSpanton, 29 January 2005 - 01:22 AM.


#182 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 29 January 2005 - 01:18 AM

WHAT THE HELL ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT???!?!?!?!


As I remember this thread is actually about Therapeutic Cloning and aside from blurring the distinction by conceding a point about conception I don't think we should, we have drifted away from the topic.

I feel the point of *why* we need to distinguish between reproductive and therapeutic cloning has been made very clear however from this tangent. :))

#183 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 29 January 2005 - 01:33 AM

As I remember this thread is actually about Therapeutic Cloning and aside from blurring the distinction by conceding a point about conception I don't think we should, we have drifted away from the topic.

I feel the point of *why* we need to distinguish between reproductive and therapeutic cloning has been made very clear however from this tangent. :))


When this conversation first began I considered whether it was germane to the topic of thera cloning, or whether I should split it off from the original thread. Admittedly it is somewhat tangential, but I think it is relevant for the reason you provide.

And what do you mean Laz by "conceding a point about conception"?

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#184 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 29 January 2005 - 02:15 AM

And what do you mean Laz by "conceding a point about conception"?


I am so glad you asked Don. [lol]

I do not grant that the zygote used and diverted to SCRT is a human or that it is even remotely capable of *becoming* a human without a considerable amount of intervention and the most important element till the tech goes much further along than it is, is a mother.

These artificially created and (limited) zygotes are no more a person than my finger is, no more sentient than my skin is and no more capable of growing into a person than my big toe. Should we ban the cultivation of skin tissue because the nuclear DNA could theoretically be used to create a human?

Oh sure with a lot of additional assistance, intervention and technology that we simply do not have yet and are not directly developing in order to effect Therapeutic Cloning; you might be able to make the zygotes produced for therapeutic techniques into something significantly more complex than they were intended for, but that is not even in the cards under the current approach and demands for therapeutic cloning.

No brain, no body, no cellular differentiation, no womb, and we have no person.

A *potential* person is your comeback and I would argue that this is not even a potential person without a lot more effort than we are currently even remotely capable of providing.

#185 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 29 January 2005 - 02:29 AM

Oh yeah, in order to argue Reproductive Cloning Randolfe basically gave ground on this issue and no one really called him to task.

You didn't because it fed credibility to your position. Why others granted this point is not really relevant but I do not grant it and I that is why I call it the bioconservative Maginot line. I think it is a vulnerable position to rely on.

#186 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 29 January 2005 - 05:42 PM

Lazarus Long

I am so glad you asked Don. [lol]


And I'm so glad you responded Ken. :))

I dismiss the whole "potentiality" argument out right because it is based entirely on metaphysics and has no place within secular debate.

I agree with most of your points, especially regarding the conditions necessary for a zygote to become a sentient human being. I do, however, take exception with your last point:

A *potential* person is your comeback and I would argue that this is not even a potential person without a lot more effort than we are currently even remotely capable of providing.


A *potential* person is not my come back. My come back is intent.

Both sides of the argument grant that a zygote, given the right external environmental conditions, has the potential to become a human being. What they disagree on is whether this is ethically relevant.

For instance, in the abortion debate it has long been contended by the "pro-life" camp that sexual intercourse coincides with the intent to procreate. In its more extreme forms, this view is even against the use of contraceptives because they disrupt the "intended" consequences that God had meant for the act of procreation to precipitate.

Pro-choice advocates on the other hand argue that there is no implied intent that comes with sexual intercourse. Instead, they counter that sexual intercourse can also be for the purposes of pleasure or to strengthen the bonds of a relationship.

Similarly, in therapeutic cloning, pro-cloning advocates do not deny that the embryo has the potential to become a human being. What they deny is that this is ethical relevant. What is ethical relevant is the "intent" of those creating the embryos. In the case of therapeutic cloning, the intent is to create embryos for their therapeutic potential -- not for the creation of human beings.

And finally, that brings us to reproductive cloning. When one argues efficacy they are not arguing on grounds of "potentiality", but on grounds of intent. It would be unethical to develop alternative reproductive techniques with the intent to create cloned individuals when one knew that the rate of malformation would be significantly higher.

#187 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 29 January 2005 - 06:45 PM

Similarly, in therapeutic cloning, pro-cloning advocates do not deny that the embryo has the potential to become a human being. What they deny is that this is ethical relevant. What is ethical relevant is the "intent" of those creating the embryos. In the case of therapeutic cloning, the intent is to create embryos for their therapeutic potential -- not for the creation of human beings.

And finally, that brings us to reproductive cloning. When one argues efficacy they are not arguing on grounds of "potentiality", but on grounds of intent. It would be unethical to develop alternative reproductive techniques with the intent to create cloned individuals when one knew that the rate of malformation would be significantly higher.


No Don it does NOT bring us to the issue of Reproductive Cloning with *intent* because there is no ability to do so at this time. Your argument is based on the *intention to fulfill that intent* that is totally dependent on what is still hypothetical, hasn't happened yet and under current developmental conditions may be considered a groundless fear because there is still no manner to fulfill the goals of those who are *intent* on reproducing through cloning.

Could this become a possibility through further research into therapeutic cloning?

That depends on what your intentions are for what we learn now doesn't it?

Isn't it also equally possible that we can basically make it impossible to use techniques developed for therapeutic cloning into ones that are beneficial to reproductive cloning?

However you will be unable to prevent and protect the human race from creating reproductive cloning by imposing a moratorium on therapeutic and in fact all you will do is drive the research into more obscure and less regulative quarters where in all likelihood it will not slow down at all but in fact counter intuitively might be sped up.

But this is also why such an outcome might be desirable to some but in fact the worst possible result as it will ensure inequities of distribution for the advances and maximize social risk.

Transparency with all its problems is the best possible manner of developing the technology with the greatest associative empowerment to manage the risks.

I think the linkage you are basing your argument on is tenuous at best. I do not think the embryos can be considered potential human beings, unless potential is not just commensurate with intent but facility and ability.

Your attempt to dissect the argument of intent away from the actual mechanics of gestation and the ability to meet those demands is a veiled attempt to use the same arguments that only *might* apply to Reproductive Cloning from a social ethics standpoint as equivalent to those that you *intend* (though I suggest only *wish* :)) ) to use against Therapeutic Cloning.

I not only consider this wishing thinking on the part of bioconservatives and a counter productive, prohibitionist, irrationally fear based strategy, I argue it obscures legitimate debate and is essentially a bait and switch argument.

That is why they keep attacking the mere *possibility* of Reproductive Cloning and continuously ignore the growing opportunities and potential regulatory ability that Therapeutic Cloning may also provide.

In fact if the bioconservatives were serious about regulating Reproductive Cloning from a technological standpoint they should be PROMOTING, not attempting to inhibit Therapeutic Cloning because by establishing these as distinctly different technological avenues of development they are helping to truly ensure that such **evil intention** (from their perspective) has less opportunity to manifest itself.

#188 randolfe

  • Guest
  • 439 posts
  • -1
  • Location:New York City/ Hoboken, N.J.

Posted 29 January 2005 - 10:25 PM

Well, the hypocritcy of the "spin doctors" here is becoming more and more obvious.

First, there is an attempt to define the debate so narrowly that many real issues cannot be raised. This debate is "only about therapeutic cloning"! Indeed, that is like announcing a debate on atomic power plants but banning discussion of the dangers of radiation.

Discussion of "intent" is ridiculous. Those opposed to therapeutic cloning argue that "You can't have stacks of cloned embryos and 'embryo farms' producing cloned embryos in abundance without someone, somewhere, somehow taking one of those embryos, implanting it into a woman and bringing it to term."

This is a totally realistic and rational argument. It is not so different from the one used to limit the spread of nuclear war. "You can't have nuclear bombs in the hands of greater and greater numbers of countries without one of them ultimately deciding to drop one."

So, the political ploy of separating "the therapeutic cloning debate" from "the reproductive cloning debate" is an irrational construct. It is really used by those who support stem cell research as a short-term political fix.

I don't mind political expediency if it is used in moderation. You will see that I have spent more energy defending therapeutic cloning than reproductive cloning during my media appearances.

I took exception to Christopher Reeve ONLY after he gratutiously commented that "reproductive cloning should be outlawed". It would have been far less objectionable if he had said: "Reproductive cloning should be outlawed at this time because it is experimental and dangerous."

(I hope I am not repeating myself here. I write so often at so many places that I sometimes forget what issues I have covered.)

I embrace a riskier libertarian approach--"That any couple or single person who realizes the likelihood of failure and the dangerous outcomes involved, and who is willing to assume the responsibility of caring for the resulting child has the reproductive right to attempt reproductive cloning".

I do this because I am aware of the history of "morally debatable" reproductive technology. Artificial insemination was prevented from being implimented for nearly one hundred years by political pressures and moral objections.

IVF was discovered in the early 1940s and had been delayed for nearly forty years by ethical debates that "children should not be conceived in test tubes" and "children conceived in test tubes would be abnormal, would have no souls, etc". That debate only ended after Louise Brown was born in 1978.

So, the ideal approach to safely and rationally developing reproductive cloning is simply not feasible. Reproductive cloning will ultimately have to be done by mavericks. These people may be acting with less than noble "intent". They might just want fame and fortune (an accusation that certainly fits the Raelians and possibly Drs. Zavos and Antinori).

Equally likely however, the first successful attempt at human cloning will be undertaken by one of those who constitute the 10% of the population who are infertile.

I am more familiar with their pain and passion because I have talked to hundreds of these couples. Their "fertile" fellow heterosexuals simply don't understand their pain, their feelings of having been denied the ability to have their own children that all their friends take for granted.

They are "ashamed" of their problem. They hide it from others. It took me four years to find a few couples who would publicly discuss their situation publicly and how repeated failures ultimately caused them to investigate reproductive cloning.

So, once we have perfected the cloning of embryos, a member of this invisible 10% could certainly use it to correct the injustice they have encountered.

A good example of how political stragetists will go to great lengths to negate the necessity of ever confronting "essential issues" involved in ALL cloning is shown in Laz's comment:

-----------------------QUOTE-----------------
LAZ SAYS:Isn't it also equally possible that we can basically make it impossible to use techniques developed for therapeutic cloning into ones that are beneficial to reproductive cloning?
-----------------------QUOTE--------------------------

Nothing is impossible. However, the above statement implies that Laz wants "reproductive cloning" to disappear from the "therapeutic cloning debate" just like those advocating nuclear power plants wish to make "nuclear waste and radiation" disappear.

In fact, some researchers have pursued parthenogenesis mainly to "avoid" the embryo problem. They hope that an egg can be tricked into dividing enough times that stem cells can be harvested from it even though it has no chance of becoming a viable embryo which could result in a live birth.

That is a great idea. I wish them success. However, I feel their "intent" is shaped by the "Yuk" factor surrounding human reproductive cloning.

I would like to see a discussion at IMMINST about reproductive cloning that was somewhat informed. This discussion about therapeutic cloning was certainly informed. However, now that we've gotten to "the heart of the cloning debate", it is being trashed and called "off topic".

The really important underlying issues in the "cloning" debate are extremely relevant to "the conquest of involuntary death".

They include how the current "politicized" funding of scientific research can be reduced. "Immortality" (stated that way) is even a more taboo subject than "reproductive cloning". Even research on aging and how to delay it is condemned by "experts" like Leon Kass.

Have you read that this week's great breakthrough in repairing the hearts of heart patients suffering from heart failure with adult stem cell injections (with great success)? It had to be done in South America. The one physician who used it to save the life of one patient here in the USA is now being sued.

In summarizing, I think it is important to see that those opposing a majority of the things we seek to advance here at IMMINST are also those most opposed to all cloning technology.

Those who want "to play the game" of politics with research by "seeking common ground" and condeming reproductive cloning are making the mistake the Democratic Party has been making by presenting itself as "Bush Lite".

I loved Howard Dean and donated to his candidancy early on. I'm going to donate to his campaign to become Democratic Party Chairman. These Neo-Cons need to be tackled head-on.

"Don't interfere with science!" should be everyone's mantra. We shouldn't allow them to change "the issue" with bogus "reproductive cloning" debates. Politicians should see meddling with medical and scientific research as a "no-no".

In Brazil, legislation has been passed that gives a certain percentage of tax revenues to research institutions. These institutions are revered by the public because of advances that have been made in fighting disease and improving crops. No politician wants to take on thos institutions.

In the USA, politicians meddle in everything. They pick out studies about how AIDS is spread through Africa by truck drivers and prostitutes and challenge funding. They intimidate scientists from exploring stem cell cures. The list is endless.

We simply have to stop letting them set the agenda and limiting the debate. We have to do the same here at IMMINST.

#189 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 29 January 2005 - 11:06 PM

-----------------------QUOTE-----------------
LAZ SAYS:Isn't it also equally possible that we can basically make it impossible to use techniques developed for therapeutic cloning into ones that are beneficial to reproductive cloning?
-----------------------QUOTE--------------------------

Nothing is impossible. However, the above statement implies that Laz wants "reproductive cloning" to disappear from the "therapeutic cloning debate" just like those advocating nuclear power plants wish to make "nuclear waste and radiation" disappear.


This is a misread of my *intent* Randolfe (intentional or not :)) ) as what I am saying is that it is technologically *feasible* to not only do one and not the other but to use the theoretically developing technology to make this an avenue that is not practical for those seeking to do reproductive cloning.

My desires in this respect are irrelevant, it was a rational hypothesis and one that is designed to *divide legitimately* not merely "spin doctor" the difference between Therapeutic and Reproductive Cloning.

You have an agenda and I am not spin doctoring to suggest that these are two different agendas. While I am not threatened by yours personally, it is obviously a more difficult position to defend politically and what I am suggesting is that it also may not be pragmatically necessary to.

You don't have to see that as betrayal to grant that the position is logical. You are another person seeking to force the debate onto the other extreme and this is a moderate alternative that can bring a powerful centrist movement from across party lines into play. Therapeutic Cloning is not only practical now, it could begin producing benefits that extend OUR lives while we can still benefit.

On the contrary I do not want Reproductive Cloning to disappear from the debate BTW, I just want to emphasize that it is a different agenda and no it is not like the severing the question of nuclear waste from nuclear energy at all. To mix metaphors a bit it is like trying to separate the technological distinction of fusion from fission but avoid the fallout of working with fissionable materials in favor of going directly for the option of cleaner energy sources.

You could return with the retort that fission is easier than fusion and I would argue that in this case it is reversed and taking an incremental path to development is wiser. Therapeutic cloning is far less risky than going for reproductive cloning in principle as the overt risks both practically and politically are significantly reduced.

The reverse is also true however that all knowledge, including what we learn from developing TC and SCNT will eventually contribute to making your goals a more practical reality. That is the very slippery slope the opposition most fears.

However I will add one caveat to *intent*, for good and ill, one of the truest clichés in this world is that "the road to hell is paved with good intention."

#190 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 29 January 2005 - 11:51 PM

Look Randolfe, about the Yuck factor, on that issue I will walk the walk and talk the talk.

I consider it xenophobia, I have said so already and I will continue to make the case. However on the issue of Reproductive Cloning there is an issue which is totally sidestepped in this debate and that is the potential *life* of the offspring.

These are designer babies and they may have a considerable failure rate before real success is achieved, who will care for them?

I am a parent and I find it deplorable when many people debate the lives of children as if they were nothing more than property instead of recognizing the responsibility that is commensurate with having the child, by any means, in the first place.

I am not suggesting you would be a poor parent and please everyone, don't attempt to read such into my words but the cavalier behavior of many that talk of children as if it were a new model car does often disturb me. They are not expendable regardless of being rich or poor, healthy or impaired.

It is a life long commitment to raise a child, regardless of how the child was conceived, or what are the characteristics of the child. The earliest IVF children were raised in secret until the behavior of society toward them normalized. I suggest that the same may be necessary for the first successfully cloned children or the sensationalism may do far more harm than good, especially to them.

The best thing IMHO that could happen to Reproductive Cloning advocates is to build a community and succeed at raising these children to adulthood in a healthy manner before announcing their success. The reason I suggest this is not as an advocate or opponent of the tech but as an advocate for the child. Regardless of being the product of such an exceptional intervention (cloning) the child's needs would be best served by growing up as just another child among their peers, able to play and learn, laugh, fall in love, and cry as if they were no different from anyone else.

To argue about the technology without regard to the actual lives of the children produced is like a bunch of males sitting here trying to define motherhood and tell all women how to be a good mother.

Yes, I am afraid we have all "been there and done that".

My question Randolfe is how will Reproductive Cloning advocates cope with the problems?

Not all will be detected and aborted (not a great political solution but at least practical) in time and some by coming to term must be cared for life. Who shall bear that responsibility?

Society?

I understand that you are adamant, passionate, and responsible Randolfe but would you at least grant that these open two very different set of issues and that while a heart (more likely a pancreas but not as good a comparison) produced by SCNT might fail not long after an artificial one in the beginning of actual human trials, this failure would not in itself put the entire avenue of research into jeopardy.

A set back perhaps but not likely to be stopped from just the learning curve and counter intuitively for many, this is how we learn from failure; trial AND error being an important aspect of real science after all.

I sincerely hope that you will not claim a perfect probable first result (and continued result) for a technology that is fraught with real risks under the very best of circumstances.

The reverse is simply not true, Reproductive Cloning advocates cannot afford failures. The very first failure could easily be a death knell for the entire avenue of research both as a political, as well as a legal liability causing the entire practice to be outlawed for centuries and stopping therapeutic cloning along with it. There is certainly historical precedent.

To lose the battle at this time for Reproductive Cloning does not have to stop Therapeutic Cloning from proceeding. To proceed with Therapeutic Cloning will inevitably make knowledge and techniques available that contribute to making your goals of practical reproductive cloning more possible, if not likely in time. In fact that is the one arguable fear the other side logically possesses. But to stake everything for this coming political battle on Reproductive Cloning could very well get the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

#191 randolfe

  • Guest
  • 439 posts
  • -1
  • Location:New York City/ Hoboken, N.J.

Posted 30 January 2005 - 02:02 AM

Laz, thank you for your poignant thoughts. We have two issues and only one area of disagreement. Our disagreement revolves around technology. You argue:
--------------QUOTE--------------
LAZ SAYS:"It is a life long commitment to raise a child, regardless of how the child was conceived, or what are the characteristics of the child. The earliest IVF children were raised in secret until the behavior of society toward them normalized. I suggest that the same may be necessary for the first successfully cloned children or the sensationalism may do far more harm than good, especially to them."
---------------QUOTE------------------

The first IVF child, Louise Brown, was not "raised in secret". Yes, her parents tell of how people approached the baby carriage and peeked in expecting to see something strange. However, they only saw a baby.

The Browns appeared on television shows, etc., and it became apparent that this couple were not "monster makers" but simply an ordinary couple who desperately wanted to have a child.

The first IVF baby was indeed normal. So, do some research and admit I'm factually correct in that regard.

The other area of disagreement is reflected in the following statement:
-----------------QUOTE----------------------
Not all will be detected and aborted (not a great political solution but at least practical) in time and some by coming to term must be cared for life. Who shall bear that responsibility?

----------------QUOTE------------------------

This statement is an extension of your previous assertion that cloning technology could not produce a viable embryo at this time which could be implanted and brought to term. The Korean results put that assertion very much in doubt.

And the need for a "Mother" is very easy to fill. In fact, if you examine the literature, you will discover that to create a cloned embryo they had to take a woman's egg and then use one of her own cumulus cells to create the cloned embryo.

One of the most passionate groups embracing reproductive cloning are women who want to bear later-born twins without involving the genes of a stranger. Some are women who have not yet met a man they consider fit to be the father of their child.

One woman was an identical twin herself who wanted to bear a later-born twin because the relationship she had with her own identical twin sister was, in her own words, 'incomparable to any relationship I've had with any other human being in my entire life'.

Of course, the first child conceived through cloning will have to be normal. Nature will take care of any serious abnormalities. If close monitoring shows other problems, I would think the pregnancy would be terminated. One reason I didn't want to proceed with my own attempted cloning is that I did not want to face the decision as to whether or not to abort my unborn twin brother.

Any fertility doctor (necessary to pull off reproductive cloning) would become a modern day pariah if the first child conceived through cloning turned out to be abnormal. It would indeed set back reproductive cloning. However, as I argued earlier, I don't think it would compromise therapeutic cloning.

Likewise, I agree that the first child, even the first few children conceived through cloning face a frightening life like that which befell the Dionne quintuplets in Canada during the 1930s.

Someone who desperately wanted a child to raise and love would take such a child home and raise it "outside" public view. This would also be important since some believe imperfect imprinting problems would not show up until the child started developing.

I agree with your disapproval of children being considered "things". If you would take the time and trouble to read Greg Pence's new book, Cloning After Dolly, you will see that he examines many of these questions.

Yes, children conceived through cloning would be "wanted" children. People would have to go to great trouble and expense to have them.

However, Pence asks, what if that child did not live up to the parent's expectations? Would a talented musician understand a later-born twin with only mediocre musical talent? (Creative talent varies between identical twins. Athletic talent is more highly correlated).

To return to your question as to who would be responsible for raising any child conceived through cloning, it would be the same as if that child had been conceived through sexual reproduction.

Lori Andrews in her very good book, "The Clone Age", (which is really more a book about the history of assisted reproduction than about cloning itself), tells the story of a rich man who paid an egg donor to supply eggs, a sperm donor to sell sperm, and IVF clinic to put the two together and a surrogate mother to carry the child to term. Now, here was the ultimate attempt of someone to create a "designer baby".

Well, the baby was born with major physical problems requiring constant medical care. The man said it wasn't his reponsibility. So did each of the others participating. In fact, the lower court declared this was "a child without parents".

On appeal, the rich man was forced to accept the responsibility for his own actions, the actions which lead to the birth of this child.

I have never argued that "reproductive cloning" should be front and center of this debate. That would be political suicide. It just seems to me that the reproductive rights of those who want to use this method of reproduction are simply discarded without even being considered.

We see the same thing going on in today's debate about terrorism. Suddenly, we think it is fine to enable government to detain people without knowing the charges against them or even having a trial, it's OK for people to be able to monitor the books you check out at the library, etc.

Reproductive cloning is simply tossed aside as a "non-issue". This is part of a general erosion of reproductive rights going on all over the world. You can'[t be a sperm donor or have artificial insemination in Ireland. You can't sell your eggs or be a surrogate mother in Canada. You can't produce more than two embryos at a time in Germany and they must be implanted and not frozen. Single women are now refused help at fertility clinics in Italy.

It is all a slippery slope that ends with laws like those in China that tell you if you can have a child, limits you to one child and punishes you for violating the edicts of the state.

Perhaps just such policies will be necessary in the future to control population growth. I would prefer " economic development" which has left all of Europe with a negative population curve.

The prospect that our social future leads to "reproductive controls" like those in China makes living forever much less inviting. I would rather "die" living free and fighting for freedom.

#192 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 30 January 2005 - 08:27 AM

Laz, I don't have time to respond to the large amount of dialog that has been added since my last post, but it will suffice to say that I think you misunderstood my argument somewhat. [glasses]

I guess you are not too familiar with Blackburn, eh?

Edited by DonSpanton, 30 January 2005 - 09:59 AM.


#193 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 30 January 2005 - 09:13 AM

laz

Your attempt to dissect the argument of intent away from the actual mechanics of gestation and the ability to meet those demands is a veiled attempt to use the same arguments that only *might* apply to Reproductive Cloning from a social ethics standpoint as equivalent to those that you *intend* (though I suggest only *wish*  ) to use against Therapeutic Cloning.


I am completely at a loss on this part. [glasses]

#194 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 30 January 2005 - 09:44 AM

... those I intend to use against therapeutic cloning...??

There must be some miscommunication going on here... [glasses]

#195 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 30 January 2005 - 10:44 AM

Lazarus Long

No Don it does NOT bring us to the issue of Reproductive Cloning with *intent* because there is no ability to do so at this time.  Your argument is based on the *intention to fulfill that intent* that is totally dependent on what is still hypothetical, hasn't happened yet and under current developmental conditions may be considered a groundless fear because there is still no manner to fulfill the goals of those who are *intent* on reproducing through cloning.


Uh, I couldn't resist responding to a little of this. :)

Let me get this straight. Are you contending that an attempt at Repro cloning couldn't be attempted as of today? Practically or theoretically speaking?

You're moving the field of play somewhat Laz. The question as it stood was whether reproductive cloning would be ethical if it were attempted with the best techniques currently available.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my position. I do not favor a ban on reproductive cloning (or even a moratorium, although looking back I see that I endorsed that quote by BenZ -- this was a dialog error on my part and possibly the source of your misunderstanding my remarks). It was not my "intent" :) to support either a moratorium or a ban. I was simply arguing that Repro Cloning, at our current level of technological development, would be unethical to attempt.

(You also sort of jumped in here Laz. :) I had only covered the political issue, and was circling back to the ethics, when Randolfe more or less recanted on the efficacy issue...so I thought the debate was over...)

Could this become a possibility through further research into therapeutic cloning?


Yes, and as you say else where in your post, this is a possiblity the bio-cons fear. It is also one of the justifications they give for the proposed moratorium on thera cloning -- you know this.

That depends on what your intentions are for what we learn now doesn't it?


Yes

Isn't it also equally possible that we can basically make it impossible to use techniques developed for therapeutic cloning into ones that are beneficial to reproductive cloning?


Yes

However you will be unable to prevent and protect the human race from creating reproductive cloning by imposing a moratorium on therapeutic and in fact all you will do is drive the research into more obscure and less regulative quarters where in all likelihood it will not slow down at all but in fact counter intuitively might be sped up.


Once again, I agree. Just because I am against reproductive cloning at the present time does not mean I support a ban or a moratorium. I suppose I should have been more clear about this fact.

Okay, its late. The rest of your post is the part that I am still slightly fuzzy on, so I'll leave it for later.

#196 remescen

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 April 2005 - 03:11 AM

My arguments against therapeutic cloning fall into three broad catagories.

1.  Potentiality
2.  Intrinsic worth
3.  The slippery slope (The Brave New world factor)

Personally, I only support numbers two and three, but in order to properly represent the conservative position I will defend all three catagories.

bioconservative


NOTICE:
THIS HAS NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE TOPIC OF DICUSSION, SO SKIP IT IF YOU'D LIKE.

Just a thought, nothing more...

Perhaps instead of "properly representing the conservative position" and going against your view on number one, you could simply take into account your opinions on the subject and only your opinions. If you are ready to defend a position that you yourself do not support, I'd like to know why. My point is, instead of placing yourself in one polar extreme or category, you can instead be human and support what YOU feel on a topic and stick with that. I don't understand why people call themselves conservative (even liberal for that mater) and choose to separate themselves from their instincts just so they can be seen as purely conservative (or purely liberal of course) and thus more rigid in their mindset. It just doesn't make sense when people should just be themselves on such important topics!

But by all means, if "number one" is just itching to get noticed simply because it's a conservative point of view, then adopt it right away. [thumb]

By the way guys (and gals), very interesting reads. Keep it up!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users