Here’s a slippery slope argument I actually find compelling.
We are opening the door towards the commodification of human life. The genetic information of certain individuals could actually be worth a considerable sum whether or not the sale is actually legal.
We will have created a whole new realm of crimes and privacy issues that we will all have to face whether or not we choose to clone on a personal level.
The right to perform certain experiments is in no way equivalent to the traditional right of human beings to procreate (or to choose not to procreate). We are making this decision as a society. The abortion issue seems unrelated to me.
Taking cloning in conjunction with the development of the artificial womb (which is probably about as far off IMO) the possibility of mass human production arises.
Perhaps we would have been scoffed at years ago if we had predicted that some cult would have tried to clone human beings while the technology was still experimental. While I don’t believe the Raelians claim, I think we have to realize that cloning is going to abused from the start in ways we have yet to imagine. The raelians are supposedly working on the “babytron” ( an artificial womb) at the moment.
I don’t think groups like this can achieve these sort of advances on their own, they will need considerable help from mainstream scientific research. A few million dollars in an unspecified country later, we may begin to understand the full ethical consequences only after they are shown to us.
Certainly such fears are good reason to proceed with caution, but I don’t see them being good enough reason to call a halt to research, any more than the fear of suffocation would have been good reason to stop trying to invent railway travel.
Certainly not if further testing is banned, as you seem to suggest.
What would be unfair for the child? What would be unethical in expectations?
I guess it would be unnatural. So what? IVF babies are unnatural. Healing a cleft palate is unnatural. Something being unnatural isn’t automatically a bad thing.
At this point, the technology is so underdevolved that cloning easily can be dismissed as immoral. But even a perfected cloning technique would still be bad news. There’s a reason life went from single cell division (cloning) to sexual procreation. Widespread cloning is bad for the human race, since it shortcircuits evolution. Perhaps the interests of the human race should not be raised above that of the individual. But the same can be argued for any other practices that interfere with natural childbearing. How about sex selection? Artificially designed babies. How about babies specifically designed with low intelligence to do manual labour? Etc. Everybody has a limit as to what practices should be accepted, what’s wrong with setting that one at cloning? What is the overwhelming need that can be solved by human cloning – that it should be pursued even against such overwhelming unease and revulsion?
Why does there have to be an overwhelming need? We don’t need to cure to cancer, or increase breast sizes, or switch to HD TV. Humanity would/will continue without a lot of the things we invent/use. If someone chooses cloning as a means of reproduction then I can’t see that is any of the governments business. Just another valid way(at some point) to make a baby.
Good. So, you would be against cloning even if it were 100% safe reliable.
Every scientific advancement in medicine could be interpereted as shortcircuiting evolution. The same arguments could be made for curing smallpox. There is absolutely no proof or even evidence at all that cloning would be against the best interests of the human race. You just don’t like it.
If you are against designer babies and sex selection and interference with natural childbearing that’s great. No one is forcing you do participate in these things. However, to suggest that because you don’t like these things we should just do an outright ban on all cloning is silly.
BTW, how does low intelligence help one do manual labor?
It’s obvious that current technology cannot be applied ethically. Also that those problems will be sorted out within a fairly short time.
Against? No. I have not made up my position. But I’m extremely vary and see no reason to hurry into this. And since we all seem to agree there is no pressing need, why not wait a century or four. Get the thing thoroughly discussed before we get our feet cloned.
Of course there is. We just agreed it short circuited evolution (stops to be more precise). And no I don’t like it. But that’s beside the point. The point is whether those drawbacks for the human race are enough to ban it if individual persons desire it. Which is why I brought up the other examples of possible future techniques. Trying to sound the depths of your liberal mind, with the assumption that everybody has a point where they say stop; hereto and no further. However you seem to be of the opinion that everything should be allowed (designer babies and sex selection both? Are you really of the opinion that parents should be given free hands to design babies to their hearts content?) Michael Jackson has a love of monkeys I’ve heard. How about he designed a baby half human half chimpanzee? What about a crazy but wealthy white supremacist, that think white blue eyed Nordic clones spewed out of his own personal lab is just what the would is in dire need of is. I’m certain someone can come up with even more horrible scenarios. Should we sit on our hands because no one is forced to participate? And if we decided to ban some of those solely because we do not like them, what’s so wrong in banning cloning after the same recipe?
Of course one can argue that we are forced to participate. The human race you know – we’re all in it together.
(The manual labour thing was meant as a menial labour thing. A repetitive job that requires very little skill. Factory worker say. With all respect and we can’t live without them and all that. But nobody grows up dreaming of 14 hour shifts packing fish at the local fish processing plant. But hey, no problem with can just twix the genetics a bit, and grow our own perfect factory slave specimens. A silly example no doubt. But individuals designed for specific tasks are not unimaginable. A disgusting thought to me; debasing free will. Much like cloning it undermines the potential everybody should have to be someone unique.)
The government implements the rules we decide it should. And it is our business precisely because we’re not talking about TV or silicone implants. But about human life. And we are our brother’s as well as out neighbor’s cloned baby’s keeper.
So does medicine, air conditioning, and virtually any other human invention. There’s no need to evolve thick fur if you can just put on a jacket or turn up the thermostat. No need to evolve an immunity to some disease if you can just get vaccinated at birth.
How is that any worse than some crazy white supremacist impregnating a bunch of Nordic women the old fashioned way?
Actually cloning, if taken as a new means of reproduction wholesale could be devastating to the species. Genetic diversity seems to be the best path to the persistence of a species. Need I say Potato Famine?
OTOH, inventions that make life possible for those that wouldn’t have survived otherwise actually increase our genetic diversity.
On the whole, I’ve been dissapointed with recurring tactic in this thread to compare human reproduction to jet planes, locomotives, and HDTV’s. That’s precisely the sort of attitude that tells me we’re not ready for the potential mass production of human beings.
The reproductive rights strategy seems a little more worthwhile to me, but I don’t think it holds up. If it is a right then it is a technologically mediated right. No technology, no rights. Therefore prior to the full development to the technology, it is still a question of human experimentation not reproduction.
Also, there’s no reason to think cloning will displace sexual reproduction. If everyone stopped having sex and started cloning instead, there might be cause for concern (assuming only the “best” people got cloned - if everyone got cloned, our genetic diversity would remain what it is now), but that isn’t going to happen.
My point is that “technologically mediated rights” are still rights. The right to freedom of press isn’t somehow inferior or invalid just because it depends on the existence of printing presses. If that isn’t what you were saying, then I guess I’m not disagreeing.
**The train isn’t the comparison; it’s the attitudes of the people - before the advent of rail travel, it was widely believed that to travel at speeds greater than (something like) twenty miles per hour would result in death by suffocation; of course this was based on a good deal more ignorance than is any objection to human cloning, but the point remains; “it’s scary” isn’t a good reason to lock down research.
Eh? Where did I say that I had any idea what the benefits would be? I’m sure I already said that I didn’t think a projection of any future benefits was an essential motivator?
It’s not that it’s inferior, it’s that the right doesn’t exist yet. The right will only exist if and when the technology is viable.
How can you have a right to own a gun if guns don’t even exist? Your right to invent or fashion a gun can be an entirely different matter. Because you have a right to bear arms,would you then conclude that you have the right to invent and possess a death ray gun?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mangetout *
but the point remains; “it’s scary” isn’t a good reason to lock down research.
[QUOTE]
This seems like a gross oversimplification and hence it’s not very convincing. Alternately I could say that “it’s scary” isn’t a good reason not to play russian roullette.
Yes, but not very convincingly. It’s very convenient to try and shift the burden of proof, but it doesn’t shed any light on the ethics of the situation.
Why do you feel the need for experimentation trumps the potential for abuse in this situation? Or this that just the way you feel about research in general?
**well, you could… but then wasn’t it you that took me to task about what you felt to be inadequate comparisons? How does Russian roulette compare to scientific research?
**I don’t believe there necessarily is any burden of proof here.
Potential for abuse is just that - potential - I was going to try another analogy here, but I think we’ve had enough of them - Of course it is important that science acts in a responsible and ethical way, but it should not be held ransom to the speculative fears of the largely unqualified public.
Perhaps it can be so argued. I’d say they merely alter the landscape in which our species live in – and that evolution (particular sexual) is very much still going strong, she has just shifted its focus a bit.
Well that’s pretty disgusting as well. However, the difference is one of degree of control. Sexual procreation might give you a child that looks like either of the parents, on the other hand - it very well might also not. Also the child is not burdened with bearing an exact copy of someone’s other DNA. It’s a unique individual, free to choose its own road. Also cloning turns the breeding mares (or whatever we should call them) into . . . well breeding mares. (Here you might argue they’re free to not participate – and I’d probably agree. Doesn’t mean I like it). Finally cloning seems to be the key, or at least an essential part of the key, to a veritable Pandora’s box of troubling technologies looming in the future. (artificial wombs, designer DNA, etc.) I guess I just don’t trust us humans with that kind of godly power just yet. Perhaps next millennium. Why hurry? We’ve got all eternity in front of us.
Mangetout I still don’t think the train / gun / material etc. analogy is any good. A more relevant analogy would be something like claiming everybody should have the right to operate on their children, or administer drugs on them, or reprogram their psyche.
Anyway you now seem to concentrate on research. Personal, I have no special objection against research into cloning techniques. It’s the implementations of said techniques I find highly suspect. I also think the technological aspect of the discussion is quite irrelevant, it’s the ethics that’s the rub.
You seem to be arguing from a perspective that everything is a right. But as I’ve been trying to say, everybody (you too I assume) agrees that personal freedom and rights only go so far, and especially when we’re dealing with actions that affect other people they should always be questioned. There is no right or wrong on this, it’s a matter of values, however if it’s the opinion of the majority (and it seems to be) that cloning harms other people (the cloned baby for instance) I think it’s your responsibility to convince them that it’s not so. Not just fall back on a personal right thing. I think the ball is on your part of the playing field, and I have yet to hear a single good argument why cloning should be performed.
I also think things like “[…]speculative fears of the largely unqualified public.” is very dangerous. The last thing we want is to turn over our democracy to experts. If the public is unqualified, it needs to be educated not hoodwinked or coerced. (or we’ll give you the Butlerian Jihad! )
)