I am not Cat Whisperer, but I predict she will reply that the immoral act is raising/designing the clone to make it happy & fulfilled by the act of being murdered and harvested. I’m not sure there’s an non-evil way to accomplish that. No, scratch that; I am sure that there is no non-evil way to accomplish that.
Of course they shoot back! They also hack, stab, slash, and project energy back! That’s the point. Why would you kill someone/something if not to prove that you are better than him/her/it? Killing without giving one’s opponent the chance to fight back is to act out of fear or weakness.
Who said anything about conquest or rulership? I have more weapons than a man can easily count just within a ten meters, but I’ve never conquered anything (or, at least I never stayed around to make sure that stayed conquered). Surely you would balk at using clones to protect what is yours (I’ve seen some of the things you use already).
“Monstrous” and “evil” sound so…judgmental. I can agree that slavery, rape (of children as well as adults), and murder are wrong–to the extent I would never perpetrate. Nevertheless, these are also things humans do, and have done, for as long as we’ve been keeping track of ourselves. There is no reason to believe we will stop treating each other horribly. Is it not monstrous, then, to refuse to take measures that would at least eliminate the suffering? I think the answer to that will be dictated by whether or not you are optimistic about humanity.
Sorry if that’s a hijack of the poll. I’ve answered it, I’ve stood by and explained my opinion. I can see I’m being offensive and that’s not what I want to do.
I’m not offended, and I don’t consider what you’ve written a hijack. Nor am I calling you evil or monstrous for holding your opinion. I think you’re *wrong; *I think you’re mistaken.
Let me just clarify your position for my own sake, and feel free to correct me.
You think that if we could breed a subtype of human, that was the same in every way us except that did not suffer from the “negative effects”* of being raped, and in fact welcomed it, that would be a ethical action?
*it suffered no psychological trauma etc.
How is giving a person no option of refusing consent anything other than unethical?
It’s an interesting question; I’m not sure why anyone would want to create human beings who want to be murdered and harvested. That takes us to a very dark place in the human psyche and human history where we find things like brainwashing children into your family religion and women who want to be oppressed by their men.
It’s not actually difficult to imagine the circumstance under which such persons would be bred. Skald has provided possible the least malign reason, healthcare, but there are others.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. It’s too expensive for having the highest failure rate of all the procedures. But I’m also concerned that allowing this method to proliferate would introduce acceptability scope-creep into the way the public views and justifies cloning. Once a cloned heart saves an adorably young wife/mother, it’s going to make the front page of the New York Times. And people are going to find it ever easier to justify methods 1 and 2, because their success rates are higher than 3’s. I’m not comfortable with that, so I think it’s better to leave that door firmly shut.
Posting without reading thread, so you get pure unadulterated Oak-logic.
I veto the whole clone technique. That’s essentially creating a unique human personality, denying it freedom, and inflicting pain/suffering/mental anguish purely for the benefit of others. I find it distasteful on the level of slavery, maybe even worse.
The brain free option is tolerable, but is pushing the limit of how far I’m willing to go.
The single organ option is the one I’m most comfortable with using.
Interesting. You would deny organ transplants to sick people due to your personal unease.
Do you object to stem-cell research, skin grafts and tissue engineering?
They would always have the option to refuse consent. What they would lack is the desire.
ETA: You don’t believe in karma, souls, heaven or hell. You have no desire to save your immortal soul. And yet, there are others who believe very strongly that you should. Because they do.
I have something in mind: a redhead, busty/curvy, slightly upturned nose…delivery by Tuesdat next.
If they lack the desire to refuse consent, how are they freely giving consent?
If I get a child hooked on heroin, and then tell the child that if they want more they have to consent to working as a prostitute, they are not giving consent, no matter how much they plead to be let out to turn tricks.
Well, that’s nice, delusional, but nice.
The child was not bred to naturally want to be a prostitute, you trapped it with addiction and it unwillingly engages in a lifestyle you trapped it into. You’re not seeing the difference between unpleasant choices made out of self-preservation and a natural drive?
The believers feel the nonbelievers are delsuional. So who then is delusional? Neither side can prove their case.
I have no problem against *cloning *a whole human being.
I do have a problem with harvesting organs that would cause its death without its consent.
I see no real difference, except speed and bettering the odds of a transplantable match, between cloning yourself a person and having another child in the hopes that her bone marrow will match her older sister’s. Or yours.
So clone away. Just get an informed consent before harvesting. And you’re legally, ethically and financially responsible for supporting your clone just as you would be for a child. Abuse it or cause it unnecessary pain or suffering or kill it, and you should be charged just as you would for abusing an elder or child under your protection.
No. The ‘natural drive’ is no such thing, you bred it to be there, just as surely as if you fed the child the heroin.
The burden of proof lies with the believers.
Right, the conscious clone is actually a human, with all the rights and responsibilities that that entails.
No.
Putting my belief down to “personal unease” is a gross oversimplification of the matter. It feels like you’re minimizing my beliefs regarding the sanctity of human life in general, and the ethical responsibility we have toward *created life *in particular. Would it be fair to call my discomfort with the institution of slavery “personal unease?” No, because that’s a belief that’s shared almost universally by humanity in this day and age.
Moreover, in this hypo, method 3 does not exist in a vacuum. If the hypo had been worded with that as the sole option, I would probably have said yes. I don’t have problem growing organs in petri dishes. But method 3 isn’t the only available option. GIVEN that we have methods 1, 2, and 3 available, do I feel comfortable using 3? Hell no. I firmly believe that, once it’s acceptable to grow organs in petri dishes, that procedure will inevitably be compared to the efficacy of humanoid cloning (methods 1 and 2). And yes, I’m uncomfortable enough with that possibility to redlight method 3 altogether.
Tissue engineering is analogous to growing organs in vitro. We can grow skin, bladders and cartilage, and in a short time we will be ale to grow livers and teeth.
And the reason I classified it as personal unease, was your use of the word ‘squick’. Which is not a reasoned response but an emotional one.
Apologies.
I agree with you regarding the sanctity of human life, as evidenced by my other posts in this thread, I just find your objections to method three, and yet acceptance of stem-cell research, skin grafts and tissue engineering, bizarre and self-contradictory. I dont find the slippery slope argument that you employ particularly persuasive, there are lots of technologies we currently rely on (e.g. IVF) that, if taken to extremes, would end with highly unethical practices (e.g. Selecting for disability such as choosing to have a blind or deaf child).
Honestly, I mostly said that because I don’t get to use “squick” nearly often enough. I accept that I may have inadequately described my moral quandary!
I realize the slippery slope is technically a logical fallacy. But what do you call it when someone uses this as an argument and turns out to be right?
But you’re comparing the application of method 3 on Planet Skald to the application of stem-cell research &etc on Planet Earth. They’re ONLY not analogous due to the existence of methods 1 and 2 on Planet Skald. Methods 1 and 2 don’t exist on Earth, so it’s not the same comparison.
I hope that makes sense. My brain hurts a little. Anyone got a spare? 
No need! We gud. 