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.