What Mangetout said.
But, just so I can get my cookie…
Human cloning would be very useful to an infertile couple.
Mangetout,
I believe that some good moral questions were already raised by alterego in the quote in the previous post.
Let me restate one I found relevant.
“enormous risks of bodily and developmental abnormalities”
To my knowledge, test tube babies do not face the same known risks as clones. So I’m not sure why you found the comparison relevant.
" Everything is ultimately pointless -"
That’s a bleak view on life. Hardly a convincing argument either.
Really you’ve left no room for any moralization of any sort. If it’s all pointless, I suppose I might as capture people and torture them to death in my basement. After all, we do things because we can and because we want to right?
It reminds me of Nietchze and his “will to power”. It’s really no surprise that the Nazis found his philosophy so convenient.
Are you proposing a moral framework or are you trying to negate morality all together?
I assume this was addressed to me, since I brought up test tube babies.
There are always risks of bodily and developmental abnormalities. They’re called birth defects for a reason.
First off, do you have evidence that these risks are actually higher with cloning than with in vitro or the traditional way of making babies?
Second, there are plenty of people with congenital defects that will most likely be passed on to their children. Do you believe it’s as unethical for these people to have children as it is to clone?
There is significant scientific evidence that, in higher order mammals (which include humans), cloned specimens show higher incidences of gross abnormalities.
Cloned cows and sheep frequently age rapidly and have short lifespans. The first cloned sheep developed arthritis at a vbery early age and had to be destroyed.
http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/chem227/nucleicfunction/cancer/sci-clone-aging.html
The science of this is very new, and the moral implications of creating human beings we know will probably be genetically damaged in some way is not something to just airily dismiss.
**Where did I say anything about test tube babies? Sure, developmental abnormalities are undesirable - is that an insurmountable problem? (the technology is in its infancy)
It was mostly hyperbole; I enjoy life as much as the next person, quite possibly more so.
What I’m trying to say is that not a great deal of what we do is motivated by cold logic and meticulous planning - as a species, we ‘wing it’ rather a lot.
But since you find the stateent unsatisfactory, pick something (anything) from the spectrum of human activity that you believe isn’t ultimately pointless and we can talk about it.
**That doesn’t allow much leeway for what the victim wants to do, does it? OK, we do what we do because we want to and we can, within certain mutually accepted constraints. The question here then, is whether there is justification to modify those constraints to prevent research into cloning.
**Godwin, anyone?
Not at all, I’m merely suggesting that the argument be changed from “why should we?” to “Why not?”.
Nowhere. My bad.
When we have an answer to that question, perhaps we may decide that it’s permissible. Until then, the burden is still on the new technology to show it is safe and desirable.
Ok so maybe, maybe… one day in the future humanity may be ready for cloning but as it stands, I think it’s a monumentally bad idea.
I’m really not sure how this would add to the debate.
Interesting phrasing as this seems to be closer in my mind to “why should we?” which you seem to be arguing against later.
To be fair, I was comparing you to Nietchze, not the Nazis, if that counts for anything.
Can you demonstrate that cloning is a more viable treatmant for infertility than in-vitro fertilization is? If so, you have merely demonstrated a technical advantage and still need to demonstrate that the child will not be subject to unfair, unnatural, and unethical expectations leading to psychological trauma.
I have given some legitimate arguments that countermand “Why Not?”
So far you have simply stated that mankind owns an arbitrary power enabling him to do anything within his means without regard to the moral implications. Your statement is true, (In a very Neanderthalish sense) and unrelated to our debate on the morality of cloning.
It is certainly true that we can clone, and it is nearly certain that someone will do it. That does not make it morally correct. Your argument that we should do as we wish based on the fact that we wish it and are able is as fallous as they come. Perhaps the United States should start pushing those red buttons unleashing the force of our nuclear arsenal on random countries around the world because, “we wish to do it and are able”. Or perhaps I should start walking around with an HIV infested needle and start pricking people because “I wish to do it and am able.” - These are applications of the logic behind your argument. -
Red herring, Red herring, and Red herring. We are not arguing the pointedness of human activity. Jet airliners do not have any connection with the morality of cloning. I stated a quoted synopsis above concerning the moral implications that has to this point in this debate stood on its own two feet.
**How can be done without actual research?
**Well, it did seem to me that you started out arguing that cloning was pointless.
bows out lowly
If that is all you have to say, and since you have made a ‘point’ of ignoring the relevant aspects of my argument, i’ll just step out.
I am curious if these one liners in GD are how you raise your post count.
**See my reply to far_born on his torture scenario, posted a full six hours before the above quoted passage.
**I’m trying really hard to find a way to take ‘Neanderthalish’ as anything other than a personal insult, help me out.
**Please; there’s no need for that; I’m not the only person here.
I’m in the reply window right now and I can tell you with my hand on my heart that I don’t even know my post count, but I know a cheap shot when I see it.
The typical mental image of a neanderthal is a man walking around with a club over his shoulder and dragging a woman by the hair.
The moral consideration of your statement is equivalent to that. Certainly we could do that to women because it is within our physical means, but that does not speak for the rights of the women. Your statement does not speak for the rights of the clone.
Sleep easy, I wasn’t calling you a neanderthal.
Perhaps a cheap shot, but true no? You have blatantly ignored quite a few things that I have said. So i’m sitting here wondering why I am bothering debating with someone that doesn’t read what I write.
Ok, I’ll attempt to address the moral objections:
This is a tricky one; I can imagine it being a serious concern for people who consider the fertilised ovum to be a person with rights, otherwise it seems a little OTT on the scare factor.
So what? Human individuality isn’t entirely defined by the genes, otherwise identical twins would be the same individual. Twins cope just fine with the problem of sharing each others’ genetic makeup - it really isn’t a big deal.
I don’t really know what to make of that one; it just seems like wild speculation, I’m pretty sure I heard the same sort of argument being made against bikini swimsuits. Is there any indication that women will be forced, against their will, to take any of these risks?
Again, pretty wild speculation and seems more targeted at genetic modification than cloning - I think most people would agree that if ‘designer babies’ entails choosing eye and hair colour, it would be frivolous, but can we honestly say that the desire to cure hereditary genetic diseases is mere convenience?
No, not true at all; why should I be the slightest bit concerned about my post count (if I could exchange it for payPal credit, maybe, but I can’t - it is an inconsequential number).
Yes, that’s the rub. With many medical/biological experiments, the experimentees can consent, but in this case they cannot.
How do cloning advocates create a body of evidence without an actual human clone? That’s their problem not mine. Getting it right with higher order mammals would be the first step I’m sure. But even then many of these animals do not live as long as humans, so we may still not know all of the long term effects.
We’re talking about human embryos though; the position of whether the ‘experimentee’ is a person and capable of consent is not all that different from when it arises in the abortion debate.
Certainly the possibility that a cloned individual might come to term and suffer some kind of unpleasant abnormality that couldn’t have been detected/prevented at an early stage is a valid and serious concern; most of the other objections seem like frightened slippery slope speculation.
I don’t think they’re that closely related at all. In the abortion argument you have some people who think babies are being killed, and some who don’t think that the organism being destroyed was human to begin with.
With cloning the point is to create a human baby, so doesn’t that mean everyone is considering that particular unborn organism an undeveloped human being? I can’t see anyone saying " Well, Mrs Johnson, we’ll implant this bit of cells in you, and see what it turns into." No, they know that’ll turn into a baby, or else no one would bother making the attempt.
Of course not… why would one zygote be a baby, and another zygote not be, merely because one was created through sex and the other through cloning?
Key words: They know it will turn into a baby. Doesn’t mean they think it already is.