Human Enhancement Ethics

If its OT then why are you goading me to respond?

quote:

---

In the event that a human clone is produced in a laboratory, does that person have the same rights as we do? Who will foster care for that person? Do they become the property of the lab staff?

---

Well, for starters, according to you and a few other luminaries on EvC, a fetus does not get to become a human until they are born. Since clones are not born, then they don't get to become humans, that is, if we were to be consistent with the philosophy you and others have proposed.Secondly, you aren't really answering the question. The devil is in the details. And I'm asking how they are able to grow up like any other kid when their lives would be radically different from other children.Who would be their parents? It sounds like they would be more akin to a lab rat than a child.

quote:

---

Secondly, what purpose does it serve to clone people who already exist? Will the clone be stigmatized? Will they be used as body parts in the event the original is tragically injured or develops some disease?

---

How is that not relevant to the topic of discussion? These are legitimate concerns. From me. A human. I thought he was more of a Frodo, myself. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

You're missing the point. The point is even though nuclear weapons could potentially wipe all life off the face of the earth, it also made the world a much smaller place. Before nukes existed, a country could literally rape, pillage, rape some more, pillage some more, and totally destroyed another part of the Earth without having any repercussion in their own country. After nukes came into place, people's attitude changed. Nuclear fallout meant you can't just attack the other side of the Earth and hope to get away with it. Because the world became smaller, wars also got smaller. I'm not saying you're saying we should stop advancing. I'm saying that whatever happens society will find a way to make sure we don't fall on our asses. Well, gambling can be a good thing sometime. Take the train, for example. When it was first invented, nobody trusted it. This was made worse by the forever famous race between one of the first trains ever created and a horse. The train broke down part way and everybody decided technology simply didn't work. Just imagine that at that point nobody gambled to keep the idea of the train alive. We'd still be riding horses. I don't think anyone can ever answer this question. Well, off the top of my head I can't really think of any benefit for it. But remember that cloning is very very closely related to our dreams of being able to grow vital organs and body parts to replace lost limbs.But remember this. Einstein didn't set out to discover E=mc^2 or relativity. He certainly never said to himself "ok, I'm going to set out to create nuclear submarines, nuclear reactors, and atomic clocks."What I'm trying to say is just because YOU can't think of any benefit doesn't mean there will never be people who will figure out a useful way to use it. If everyone has your attitude, we'd still be in the bronze age. Noone is saying we should recklessly venture into the future. What I am saying is there are traditions that are just simply silly to keep around. The notion that we can always look toward the past to find examples from people in the past for the answers to the future is simply silly. Not too long ago, people were still savages who burned people at the stake for witch craft. I suppose you can name a few?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I didn't say it is OT, I said it is irrelevant and yet another of your unsupported assertions. You even quoted what I said and still misrepresented it. LOL You can of course support where I said that?But regardless, so what? How is that relevant?In the case of a clone it would not be a human until it was old enough to live on its own just like any other child.How is the clone any different? How? Because they don't have mothers or fathers? How would they be different than any other children that don't have mothers or fathers? Read what I wrote. Those are no different for a clone than any other birth. Asked and Answered. You even quoted the answer.So you are sticking in the Nature/God YOU created?Sorry, Eve was a clone. Cloned from Adam. If Eve is a human then all other clones are human; ipso facto.And I said Golem, not Gollum.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I certainly agree that the very threat of nuclear proliferation is the very thing that has stayed the hands of those who have the power to push that button.I can appreciate the give/take of the situation that simply the threat of nuclear proliferation has potentially averted the mass killings, raping, and pillaging of many nations. And at the same time, one push of the button would vaporize a multitude of people, and the rest would die slowly from the fallout. We are on our asses. Spiritually and mentally we are still brute beasts, incapable of alleviating the very ills we've caused.I don't endorse war, but I know that given our current disposition, it is an inevitable evil. But I can't help hearing the voice of Rene Zellweger in the movie Cold Mountain, when her character said,"Men made the weather, only to turn around and say, 'Oh shit, its raining!" Yeah, when you win. Except, at what cost do you win. Ask Phat about this. If he spends more than he takes home, he's a loser in the long run. I don't really see a problem with riding horses. But besides that, trains don't have major societal consequences attached to them. But usurping nature by farming people surely has some. Cloning sentient beings with feelings that could be subject to whims of an apathetic scientist concerns me, especially when there does not seem to be any valid reason to do so. It seems like it just spawns from a desire to just see if they can-- consequences be damned. What are you aspiring to achieve? There is always talk of advancement, but I wonder what the motivation is for some. Humans are exactly the same as we've always been. That's the point of referencing history.But let me ask you some practical questions.1. How is a clone ever going to be considered a human by people in the pro-choice movement, when they say that a fetus becomes a human upon their birth? Clones are never born. They are harvested in a petri-dish.2. Who is going to love and nurture them? Who is going to raise them?3. Will there be a stigma attached to those harvested in some laboratory by those born of natural conception?4. Will their organs be harvested in the event that their body double becomes ill?These are just a few of the implications that I can think of off the top of my head.

quote:

---

And some things are timeless.

---

You would object to them. And it would only lead us OT. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed italics

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

You are perpetually claiming that everyone misrepresents you. Perhaps you misrepresent yourself.

quote:

---

Well, for starters, according to you and a few other luminaries on EvC, a fetus does not get to become a human until they are born.

---

Its relevant if you won't consider a clone as a human being, which is due certain unalienable rights. Live on its own? So, children aren't people until they are, what, emancipated minors? Because children don't raise themselves. I'm asking where they would go, who would care for them, etc. I'm not saying that clones wouldn't be human. I'm definitely saying that would be human. My concern is if some people would not regard them as human, as in, subhuman. I was making a joke... There goes my stand-up career.Anyway, I'm not sure what you meant by it. Can you expound?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

And I imagine you can show where I said that clones are not human beings? A thing is not even a person until it can live on its own, that is, outside the support system of the mothers womb. In the case of a clone it would be that time, approximately 9 months after creation, when it could be disconnected from the support system.How is that any different than for a normal birth? How would they be different than any other children that don't have mothers or fathers?Oh wait. I said that before and you even quoted it?So once again, "How would they be different than any other children that don't have mothers or fathers?" That is simply bigotry and the answer for clones is the same as it is to the bigots that are anti-gay, education and legal protections.Again, how is clone bigotry any different than what we hear from the Christian pulpits today?And a golem is like Adam, made of clay or mud and supernaturally activated, a Golem as opposed to the Goyim.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, it would just be another tool in the kit of reproductive technologies. Some parents are in the situation where they can't have a child (say if the mother has an inheritable medical condition or if the father is completely sterile). Say also that they wouldn't like to adopt (or would look for alternatives first before considering adoption), because they would prefer to raise a child who is at least genetically related to one parent.In this case, they could clone one of the parents in order to have a child.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Just going back to a previous post for a second. The Island is a load of nonsense. Hollywood versions of cloning, much like Hollywood versions of other things, is bunk.However, I must say that a world with more than one Scarlett Johansson surely cannot be bad! As I alluded to above, you must not watch 'The Island' like it was a cloning documentary. Clones are born (but they are not conceived). Cloning is very similar to IVF, except a nucleus from a somatic cell is used instead of a sperm cell to 'fertilise' the egg.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Ding ding ding!I have always considered human life to start at the point of conception. If you want me to be more specific than that, I'd have to say that I know human life when I see it.Just remember that the anti-rights crowd have always been the more conservative elements of our society. Somehow, I honestly don't see us bleeding heart liberals trying to convince society that clones aren't human.Let this be a prophecy. Years from now, you may look back at this and agree with me. The christian pastors, reverends, preachers, and priests will be the ones pushing for legislations to make clones and invitros to not have full human status. If history has taught me one thing, it's the conservatives' willingness to take away people's rights. Ding ding ding!I have always been a strong advocate of the united brotherhood of stop-breeding-and-adopt-you-sons-of-bitches. My wife and I have made the decision to not have any biological child of our own. Our lives are somewhat still in our transition phases. But we hope to have a full family some day through the miracle of adoption. Ding ding ding!Again, take note of this prophecy. The religious will be the ones trying to convince everybody that those "harvested in some laboratory" aren't really human and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married, drink out of the same drinking fountains as the normals, etc. Um, no. The only way for us to clone for the purpose of harvesting their organs is if we can grow human bodies without a central nervous system or something like that. Just remember that the liberals have always been the ones advocating human rights while the conservatives have always been the ones opposing human rights. Being a science fiction freak, I can think of a lot more. Haha, like how to conquer your enemy?God's Guide to Conquering Your Neighboring States 101
-Lay seige to the city
-Give ultimatum to surrender
-If city does not surrender, kill all the men, women, children, and livestock
-If city surrenders, take the general population as slaves and burn the city to the ground

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Can I ask for you to share a few?

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Taz, seriously, you keep misrepresenting the issues. Religion doesn't try to take away the rights of anyone, it only tries to actually give rights, like the right to life, to everyone in the first place. The only thing we aren't doing is splitting hairs over when life begins.

And I've said this before. To me, life begins at the point of conception, which happens to be the same position the church has taken. Different reason, though.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Sorry for bringing this topic up again, but I don't feel taz answered this question: I think cloning will probably be better than normal conception in this regard, as you can't have any 'accidental' babies via cloning. Regular methods (ie sex) may leave children without much care, but those who seek cloning will probably have not only the expressed intent to have children, but also the money to support such children.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Then you would essentially be advocating murder by being pro-abortion. How do you personally reconcile between the two opposing philosophies? I'll take your bet and raise you that its the exact opposite. Then you must be against cloning since its bringing in a duplicate of a person borne of natural conception. I call bluff. If anything, it will be from calloused scientists who have little empathy and all brain. What are you smoking? If conservatives admonish people not to kill babies, and advocate that they allow these children to live, via adoption, how can you say that conservatives oppose human rights? Where do you come up with this non-sense?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Are you referring to the rather naive and/or nutcase supporters of cloning. The likes of dictators ("Boys from Brazil", anyone?) or the Ralians? You know, the ones who didn't quite get it? That is certainly not the essence of cloning. Cloning is not necessarily connected to artificial wombs or anything. First clones will be born out of a mother like any other child. The difference with a child produced via IVF and implanted into a "gestational carrier" is very small. There's only one: a clone will have genetic material that is identical to the genetic material of someone who already exists, while a "regular" IVF child will have a combination of two sets of currently existing genomes.Proceeding to a situation where artificial wombs are being used, I still don't see a problem. Considering how (reasonable) people have accepted children carried by surrogate mothers, IVF children (selected against certain inheritable conditions or not) and the like, we can be pretty confident that "artificial womb" children will not be regarded any different. Of course certain conservative forces will have a hard time accepting them at the start, but that won't last.Also let's not forget that cloning or artificial wombs don't mean that there isn't an important investment required in order to get those children. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that the first "artificial womb" children and/or clones will need quite a bit MORE investment than naturally conceived ones. It's not like they are cheap to get and dispose of. They will be WANTED. WANTED like few children before have ever been WANTED. This seems to actually have important benefits relative to the current situation where lots of children are the product of unfortunate accidents. Harvesting organs is indeed one of the goals of cloning. Something similar is already happening with the so called "designer babies" that some parents have conceived in an attempt to use umbilical cord cells or bone marrow cells (?) to save an older brother or sister with a serious dissease. Once more cloning will just be an extension to this. Once more it will not have much effect on how we regard the clones as full human beings or not.As to having clones available as a reservoir for organs that are absolutely essential for survival (unlike kidneys where you can miss one), the goal here will be to farm them as bodies without nervous system and brains. Those will be human in the same sense as individual organs are human, but they certainly won't have personhood. Again conservative forces will have more trouble with this, but again their resistance will subside once all the advantages will become clear and actual. Of course I agree it would be a bad idea to not discuss all this thoroughly. It's just as important that it is communicated correctly to the public, though. Not in terms of misconceptions and fearmongering.