November 8, 2011 - not a good night for the Right

[Frank]

@Jonathan_Chance

Before I was forced to move to South CArolina …

[hijack]
That must be a culture shock.
[/hijack]

Have you thought about running for the Senate there? You can’t be worse than Alvin Greene.

Can you?

[Jonathan_Chance]

I certainly can’t. But I don’t have the campaign infrastructure here to run for the next several years. But I’ll start building it and see what happens.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Johnny_L.A

If the Personhood amendment passed and a woman had a miscarriage, could she be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide?

No, they don’t do it in Ireland or Chile.

@Kolak_of_Twilo

So I see where the issue of cloning came from, but I’m still not sure what you are saying concerning clones being given the right to life. There hasn’t been a successful human clone I am aware of but are you taking the position a cloned embryo wouldn’t have a right to life? In other words, are you taking the position a cloned embryo could (or should) be terminated and this would somehow be different than a normal embryo being terminated?

No, while I’m opposed to human cloning, clones from the moment of their “conception” should enjoy the right to life.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@Onomatopoeia

I can’t speak for Curtis but, in general, Christians have a problem with cloning as an affront to their god; something about only god can create life and therefore a clone, not created by god, is not life and, as such, doesn’t have the same right to life as a person.

Yeah, I already understood Christians have a problem with cloning. The question for me was more about the phrase “right to life”. Something that has a right to life would already be alive, wouldn’t it? So if a living thing doesn’t have a right to life then it would be okay to kill it. That seems a bit contradictory. Not that some Christians don’t hold contradictory positions.

@Chronos

One can have laws against cloning and still recognize that someone might do it anyway, in which case you need to decide what to do with the clone.

More importantly, cloning does already happen: Identical twins are clones. If they didn’t include that clause, then it would be unclear where life began for an identical twin. Well, really, it’s still unclear, but this way they can at least pretend that it’s not.

I think you probably did a better job of getting at the heart of what I was wondering about here.

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

No, while I’m opposed to human cloning, clones from the moment of their “conception” should enjoy the right to life.

So at least you, Qin, are consistent in your beliefs which is more or less what I was wondering.